St. Hippolytus and the Church of Rome in the earlier part of the third century : from the newly-discovered Philosophumena

pc be
enn

an ti i ut uli ni a jc it a i
By a}| a eo Ue |,

tte
i :
iy i
N (Cm ae i | ait,

hts il

i
3 ‘
i 7 } a
4 s 1
7 vA fa | i
: tk t| 7 f
2 zt {
ah ; tT
x ‘ 22
|
H
rf 3 }
;
et 3 :
\
‘31 af
7

‘it

yn We il pial

ik ‘ ST

| ?
Ho) i
| Hs uh
i ’ 4
ay | i
hi t et
Hea Pe
| ane | R peat
q]
; | it i
; ii
WEA Se, Nee Hi A} na
1; aaa ee { | thi
' i
bth : mY, rua hlese
KY ! | {
HES f :
| +} |
by
ATH a |
hy 4a
HERNIA Wes a
' ‘ Pa | i
TE A i
‘ 7 |
{ | |

oT ny iecrtinas int a
i

~ entra
— = —

a (ooo
RP a

i
= SS = = 7
— oo ee ——— — =
= — = = a =
— — i: = —
==. = a eee eee
: ——— : aS : =
= = ne een : —— -
= Sn er = ———— = —— a
oe = See <== ee :
= Se on oan ———— —— SS
= — oo - = ' prot + ie nd =
~ ee : =
‘ —
= eee
: SS
—— ~—- a — — pang " coe —
oy - a tame — ae -
ee a ——— —4 ——.
< = : = —— - = oe ne
= = SSeS SSS — . eee ere — 0
teed —— a - ae . a 2 aa .
——. 4 x a eT od we
— = . . P vs = —* -
: ~. ft ey rr ks —— =—— =
= — = a
eens ci : ~ = = 2
————— — — —— ee re
a SSS Sa —* SSS
SS 22 St % . ee anne a SS
So aedewns a ~e = =< Se SaaS a ee tra = =—— —— 35>
= — ee a a > —— = <= = 2t--
—— = ss ie rz eee —=T =
iene, meee we ; , . ans et + ah oa sh og ie ne
“ a _~— Lacareonsond i os —- — =) -
ie se Se a oe —— ag SS = 3
——s ieee arene = ee ae ie SS = na
= -- = +4: i eee —— .
= = " -

————
————

a TTR hcl sil
Lat Ass thoes

* fi cf
a i. Ai

Yi
\e ) \

ie ii hs ene iT ies i afi te ee MAA

i otinunai it iyi

| HLT Tt
Het un euiteadtndie Goge dh dy
"lb Mb 8 A a a a

. 3 ;
ie Lae Y

ST. HIPPOLYTUS

AND

THE CHURCH OF ROME

EARLIER PART

OF

THE THIRD CENTURY.

FROM THE NEWLY-DISCOVERED PHILOSOPHUMENA.

BY

CHR. WORDSWORTH, D.D.

CANON OF WESTMINSTER,

AND FORMERLY FELLOW OF TRINITY COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE,

LONDON:

FRANCIS & JOHN RIVINGTON,
ST. PAUL'S CHURCH YARD, AND WATERLOO PLACER.

1853.

PREFACE.

THE present Work consists of two Parts. The for-
mer contains a Dissertation on the Authorship of
the newly-discovered “ Philosophumena,” and on the
Life, Times, and Works of the Writer, especially in
reference to Christian Doctrine, and to the early
History of the Church, particularly of the Roman
Church, with some application to the circumstances
of our own age.

The latter Portion of the Volume is occupied
with the Historical Narrative, which is contained in
the “ Philosophumena,” concerning the Church of
Rome in the first quarter of the Third Century, and
is the most ancient and ample record, now extant,
of the condition of that Church in that early age.
This Narrative is presented in the words of the
Original, with an English Translation, and Notes.

A 2

iv Preface.

The Notes are, for the most part, critical; some
of the conjectural readings there proposed have been
followed in the English Translation, in a few pas-
sages, where the Greek Text of the MS. did not
appear to afford a clear sense. But none of these
have been introduced into the Text itself.

In the Appendix will be found a Fragment of a
Work by the Author of the “ Philosophumena,” from
an Oxford MS. This is followed by a collation of
passages in the “ Philosophumena” with a Work
of Theodoret, showing that the newly-discovered
Treatise was recognized as an authoritative docu-
ment in his age,—the fifth century,—and that con-
siderable portions of the Tenth Book were adopted
by him.

Cloisters,
Westminster Abbey,-
March 28, 1853.

CONTENTS.

CHAPTER I.

St. Hippolytus, Bishop of Portus near Rome ..

CHAPTER Il.

“The Philosophumena ; or, Refutation of Heresy”

CHAPTER III.

“ The Philosophumena; or, Refutation of Heresy”—its Author.

Whether Origen ?

CHAPTER IV.

Another Name considered

CHAPTER V.

Another Name

CHAPTER VI.

Objections considered.— Photius and others

PAGE

12

18

27

42

57

vi Contents.

CHAPTER VII.

PAGE
Objections considered.—Narrative concerning the Church of
Rome . : : ‘ ‘ : ; 5 ‘ ‘ .” oe

CHAPTER VIII.

Objections considered.—Narrative concerning the Church of

Rome . - ; , : : : . . ° -
CHAPTER IX.
Objections considered.—Silence of Church Historians , . ae
CHAPTER X.
Inferences from the foregoing Enquiry.— Works ascribed to St.
Hippolytus Cae ee ee
CHAPTER XI,

On the Theory of Development of Christian Doctrine, as applied
to the Writings of St. Hippolytus ; ; : J - 179

CHAPTER XII.

Appeal to St. Hippolytus on the present Claims of the Roman
Church to Supremacy . ; : - : : ; may |

Contents.

PART II.

NARRATIVE CONCERNING THE CuuRcCH oF RoME FROM “ PHILOo-
SOPHUMENA; oR ReruTATIoN oF Heresy ”—Book IX., in
Greek and English, with Notes

The Author’s Address to the Heathen World, from Book X., in
Greek and English, with Notes

APPENDIX.

A.—Fragment from a Work “on the Universe,” by the Author
of the Philosophumena .

B.—Collation of passages in the Tenth Book of the Philosophu-
mena with the Compendium of Heresies by Theodoret, Bishop
of Cyrus and Ecclesiastical Historian, cire. a.p. 450

C.—On a passage in “the Martyrdom of St. Polycarp,” Bishop of
Smyrna. : : ° : ; - : ; : ‘

ERRATA.

P. 87, line 11, for deny read denies.
P, 134, last line, for more read in ore.

PAGE

223

276

306

309

317

7

pT FAG LE

DISSERTATION.

CHAPTER I.
ST. HIPPOLYTUS, BISHOP OF PORTUS.

RaTHER more than a century ago, Cardinal OTTOBONI
was BisHor of Porro,—the ancient Porrus,—a mari-
time city, which is situated at the northern mouth of
the Tiber, about fifteen miles from Rome, and had
enjoyed considerable commercial celebrity in former
times'. He possessed a noble library, and endea-
voured to restore the architectural beauty of his

' See Dio Cass. in Claudio, lib. lx. num. xi. tom. ii. p. 949, ed.
Hamburg, 1752, and Sir W. Gell’s Vicinity of Rome, ii. p. 174-9,
and Contorni di Roma, by Nibby, ii. p. 323, who has published
a separate work on Porto. See also Westphal, Die Romische Kam-
pagn, ep. 172. The harbour (Portus), whence the city derived its
name and importance, had been constructed by the Emperor
Claudius, and improved by Trajan, whence it was called ‘ Portus
Trajani ;”” and possesses an interest in Christian history, as the
harbour at which St. Ignatius landed in his way from Antioch
to hismartyrdomat Rome. See Martyr. Ignat. § 5, § 6, p. 569,

570, ed. 2nd, Jacobson,
B

2 St. Hippolytus, Bishop of Portus.

Episcopal City, which in the lapse of ages had fallen
into decay.

In his zeal for the restoration of the ecclesiastical
edifices of Portus, he did not forget the names of
those among his predecessors, who had reflected
honour on his See in earlier ages. Of these, one
stood pre-eminent; one, whom he numbered in the
lineage of his own episcopal ancestry,—had shed
lustre not only upon the See of Portus, but on the
Western Church, and on Christendom at large*. He
had been celebrated for holiness and orthodoxy, for
learning and eloquence’; he was reckoned among
the Saints and Martyrs of the Western Church. He
was also venerable for his antiquity ; he had flourished
in the second and third centuries of the Christian
era. He had‘ been a scholar of St. Irenzeus, who,
in his youth, had listened to St. Polyearp’, the dis-
ciple of St. John. This was St. Hiprotytus.

It was the earnest desire of Cardinal Ottoboni,
Bishop of Portus, to do honour to the memory of
this great man. We may well sympathize with him

* Card. Baron. ad Ann. 229. ‘* De Hippolyto hactenus, in
quo utraque conveniunt ut Orientalis et Occidentalis Ecclesize
ingens decus merito dici possit.”

* He is called ‘‘ Vir disertissimus” by St. Jerome ad Lucin.
iv. p. 579, ed. Bened. ‘‘ Sacratissimus et magnus Doctor Veri-
tatisque testis fidelis,” by Anastasius in Collectan. apud Galland.
Bibl. ii. :p. 469, and a “stream of living waters to the Church,”
Torapos TH exkAnoia. Lévrwv vaparwv, by Syncellus, ad a. p. 215,
by Zonaras, Annal. p. 468, dvijp iepwraros Kai coddraros.

* Phot. cod. 121. ° Euseb. v. 20.

St. Hippolytus, Bishop of Portus. 3

in his wish, while we cannot but regret the means to
which he resorted for its accomplishment.

The Bishop of Porto,—being a Suflragan of Rome,
having the oversight of one of the churches anciently ®
called Suburbicarian, from their vicinity to the Urds,
or city of Rome, and one of those who are now
designated “ Cardinal Bishops,” and being among
those Prelates, whose office it has been from time
immemorial to consecrate’ the Bishop of Rome,—
exercises considerable influence in the Roman Con-
clave. Cardinal Orroponi endeavoured to obtain a
Pontifical brief for the sanction of a special Office

® See Ruffinus in Canon. Concil. Niczen. 6, and Notitia Curie
Romane, ed. 1683, p. 17: ‘ Consecrabant Pontificem Romanum
Episcopi vii. ejus Suffraganei nimirum Ostienis, Portuensis, Sylvz
Candide sive Ruffine, Tusculanus, Prznestinus, Sabinensis,
Albanensis, et dicebantur ante Leonis IX. tempora, Cardinales
Episcopi.” The first Bishop ever translated to the Papacy was a
Bishop of Portus, Formosus, a. p. 891; ibid. p. 17. These Epis-
copi Suffraganei were formerly viii. ; Eugenius III. reduced them
to vi. by uniting the ‘‘ Ecclesia Veliterna” to Ostia, and ‘‘ Sancta
Ruffina” to Portus. See Onuphr. de VII. Urbis Eccl., c. 1.
Hence there are now Six Cardinal Bishops. The Roman Editor
of the LXX Version of the Book of Daniel (Simon de Magis-
tris), has shown some reasons for believing that the Suburbicarian
Diocese of Portus, in ancient times, included the Regio Tiberina
of Rome itself, and the Jnsula Tiberina. See the quotations in
Lumper’s Hist. Patrum, viii. p. 18--18.

” Liber Diurnus Romanorum Pontificum, cap, 2, art. 8:
** Episcopus Portuensis dat orationem secundam.”. dior zpoo-
evxy Sevrépav.

B 2

4 St. Hippolytus, Bishop of Portus.

in honour of St. Hippolytus; to be used annually in
the diocese of Portus on the 22nd of August, the
day in which he is commemorated in the Breviary and
Martyrology of Rome®. Some circumstances, how-
ever, had then recently occurred, which obstructed
the execution of his design. Many local traditions®,
it is true, were known to exist at Portus, connecting
the name of St. Hippolytus with that city and
See. He was, and is at this day, regarded as the
Patron of the Diocese’. And the testimony of those
who had applied themselves to the study of Ecclesi-
astical History, since the revival of letters in Europe,
to the end of the seventeenth century, had been al-
most unanimous in favour of the claim of Portus to
the possession of that inheritance. That St. Hippo-
lytus, the scholar of St. Irenzeus, had been Bishop of
Portus Romanus, or the harbour of Rome, two miles
to the north of Ostia,—had been affirmed by the most
celebrated Church Historians and Divines of Rome,

* M. Bunsen places it, by a slight inadvertence, on the 21st of
August. ‘Hippolytus and his Age,” iv. p. 120.

* A building, called Torre di S. Ippolito, still stands at Porto.
See Nibby, Contorni, ii. p. 320. The Church at Portus had been
called “S. Hippolyti Ecclesia” from time immemorial, e. g. in a
Bull of Pope Gregory IX., a.p. 1236.

* “ Patronus totius Dicecesis.” See the Pastoral Letter of Car-
dinal Giovanni Antonio Guadagni, Bishop of Portus, dated 26th
September, 1756, requiring the recitation of an ‘‘ Officium et
Missam S. Hippolyti” annually by every Priest in the Diocese
of Portus on the 22nd of August,

St. Hippolytus, Bishop of Portus. 5

such as Cardinals Baronius’? and Bellarmine’, and
had been acknowledged as indubitable by the most
learned Theologians of other Churches, as, for exam-
ple, by Archbishop Ussher *, Henry Dodwell *, Bishop
Beveridge®, and Bishop Bull’.

But in the year 1685, a learned Theologian of
Holland, Stephen Le Moyne’, published at Leyden
his “ Varia Sacra,” in which he controverted the
ancient and generally received tradition concerning
St. Hippolytus. He did not deny that Hippolytus
was a Bishop: he acknowledged him as a Martyr:
he admitted that he had flourished early in the
third century. But he would not allow that he
had ever sat in the Episcopal see of Portus, near
Rome. Relying on certain notices occurring in some
ancient writers, Le Moyne would have transferred
St. Hippolytus from the genial clime of Italy and
the banks of the Tiber, to the stern wilds of Arabia,
and to the shores of the Red Sea. He would have
made him a Bishop of the Roman Emporium at

* Card. Baron. Ann. ad a.p. 229,

* Card. Bellarmin. de Scriptoribus Ecclesiasticis, vii. p. 41.

* In notis ad Martyrium S. Ignatii, § 6, p. 570, ed. Jacobson.

* H. Dodwell, Dissertatio de Rom. Pontif. Success. p. 95,
cap. 7, p. 202.

* Cod, Canon. Eccl., lib. ii. cap. 2, § v.

” Def. Fid. Nic., ii. 8. 1, p. 270, ed. Burton.

* Le Moyne, Proleg. in Varia Sacra. Vol. ii. p. 29, 30, ed. 2da,
Lug. Bat. 1694. Le Moyne was a native of France, but com-
posed this work in his capacity of Theological Professor at
Leyden.

6 St. Hippolytus, Bishop of Portus.

Aden, near what are called the Straits of Babel
Mandeb, on the southern coast of Arabia °.

Le Moyne’s theory, which was defended with inge-
nuity and learning, found favour in various quarters.
Dr. Cave’ adopted it in England. Dupin? and
Tillemont* in France, Spanheim‘ and Basnage?® in
Holland. Assemann, in Italy °, appeared disposed to
do the same. Portus was in danger of being deprived
of its most illustrious ornament,—the Bishop and
Martyr, St. Hippolytus.

Errors are not without use, as ministering occa-
sions for the firmer establishment of truth. So it
fared in the present case. It happened fortunately
for the honour of Portus, and for the fame of Hip-
polytus, that the See of that city was filled at the
time to which we refer, by a Prelate eminent for his
love of literature, and distinguished by zeal and en-
thusiasm for the past, and by affectionate regard for

* Le Moyne, p. 30. Non Episcopus Portus Ostiensis (he ap-
pears to confound Ostia and Portus), sed Portus Romani in
Arabia.

* Cave, Historia Eccl., i. p. 102.

* Dupin, Biblioth., i. p. 179.

* Tillemont, Mémoires, &c. Vol. iii. p. 104. 310, ed. 1732.
See also Lardner, Credibility, i. p. 496, ed. 4to. 1815.

* Spanheim, Epitome Isagogica ad Hist. Eccl., p. 131, ed.
Lug. Bat. 1689.

* Basnage, Annales Polit. Eccles. ad a.p. 222, Roterodami,
1706.

° Assemann, Biblioth. Orient. Clem. Vatican., iii. p. 1, ¢. 7,
p-. 15. ,

St. Hippolytus, Bishop of Portus. 7

‘the memory of his own Predecessors, Cardinal Pietro
Orroponr. It was also a happy circumstance that
his rich Library was under the judicious care of one
of the most accomplished Scholars and laborious
Antiquarians that Italy could then boast, Constantino
RUGGIERI.

Ruggieri had been invited from Bologna to settle
at Rome, where he was intrusted with the superin-
tendence of the Press of the Propaganda.

Cardinal Ottoboni requested him to explore the
archives in his own princely collection, and in other
depositories within his reach, for the examination or
discovery of documents relating to the See of Por-
tus, and to the history of St. Hippolytus; and he
commissioned him to communicate the result of his
enquiries in a Dissertation on that subject. A hap-
pier selection could not have been made; a more
competent person for such a task could not have
been found. Ruggieri undertook the work, and
prosecuted it with vigour and assiduity. In the year
1740 his Dissertation was ready for the press, and it
was thought worthy of being printed with the types
of the Vatican. It was seen and eulogized by Car-
dinal Lambertini, afterwards Benedict XIV.’ But
unhappily before the entire volume could be printed
Cardinal Ottoboni died. Ruggieri fell into distress,

’ Lambertini, De Servorum Dei Beatificatione, lib. i. ¢. iv.
n. 10. It was also seen and praised by Simon de Magistris
See his preface to the Roman LXX Version of the Prophet
Daniel.

8 St. Hippolytus, Bishop of Portus.

and died also®. Highty pages of the work had been
printed, but, unfortunately, there the impression
stopped. The edition was dispersed ; a great part of
it was consumed in fireworks for the Castel S. An-
gelo on St. Peter’s Day, and, in fine, only five copies
were saved. By a fortunate coincidence, one of
these five, enriched with Manuscript notes, fell into
the hands of a learned Abbate of the Diocese of
Porto, Achille Ruschi. In the year 1771 he had
prepared the Dissertation in a complete form for
publication, and it appeared at Rome in that year,
sanctioned with the approbation of the Maestro di
Sagro Palazzo, and inscribed to the reigning Pontiff,
CLEMENT XIV.’

This Dissertation of Ruggieri is distinguished by
elaborate research, and critical accuracy; and is com-
posed in. a clear and flowing style of terse and
elegant Latinity. It would be difficult to specify
any work of the same description, which surpasses it
in these respects. It throws much light incidentally
on the history of St. Hippolytus. It also commends
itself to the respect and gratitude of Englishmen by

* A.D. 1766. .

* Its title is Constantini Ruggieri De Portrurnsi S. Hiprpo-
LyTI, Episcopi et Martyris, Sede, Dissertatio postuma, ab Achille
Ruschio Portuensis Dicecesis absoluta et annotationibus aucta,
Rome 1771, Presidum facultate.

It is inserted in P. G. Lumperi Historia Sanctorum Patrum
August. Vindel. 1791, Pars viii., where it occupies 255 8vo.

pages.

St. Hippolytus, Bishop of Portus. 9

the candid spirit and courteous temper with which
it appreciates the learned labours of Anglican Di-
vines, especially Bp. Pearson, Dr. Hammond, and
Bp. Bull.

It appeared convenient and requisite to refer in
this place to this important work, on account of its
intrinsic merits ; and because, though much has been
recently written concerning the See of St. Hippoly-
tus, little mention, if any, has been made of this
Dissertation; and it seems almost to have been
regarded as a modern discovery, that St. Hippolytus
was Bishop of Portus near Rome. But the fact is,
this matter was long since set at rest; and to write
more upon it now would only be actum agere. The
work of Ruggieri, published in 1771, exhausted that
subject. It refuted in the most triumphant manner
the theory of Le Moyne, and established beyond the
possibility of a doubt, that St. Hrerotytus, the
scholar of St. Irenzeus, the Bishop and Martyr of the
third century, whose character and works were held
in high esteem and veneration by the Christian
Church in his own and succeeding generations, and
whose memory is revered in a particular manner by
the Church of Rome, was Bishop of Portus, at the
northern mouth of the Tiber, and was consequently
one of the Suburbicarian Bishops of the Roman
Church in the third century after Christ, whence he
is often called by Ancient Authors, not only “ Bishop
of Portus, or of the Harbour near Rome,” but is desig-
nated frequently as ‘a Roman Bishop,’ and sometimes

10 St. Hippolytus, Bishop of Portus.

1,9?

as “Bishop of the City,” and even “Bishop of Rome’:
for the ancient Roman Province was sometimes called
Rome ’.

This Dissertation also possesses a peculiar interest,
and is entitled to particular regard, on account of
its intimate connexion with the Diocese of Hippoly-
tus, and with the See of Rome. It owed its origin
to one of the Episcopal successors of Hippolytus ; it
was completed by one of the Clergy of the Diocese
which he had governed; it was commended by one
Bishop of Rome, Benedict XIV., and was dedicated
to another, Clement XIV. It was produced, there-
fore, under the sanction of the Bishop of Portus, and
under the auspices of the Bishop of Rome. It may
be regarded as embodying the judgment of the
Roman Church concerning St. Hippolytus. It may

* See Nicephor. Callist., iv. 31, and the Authorities in Fabri-
cius Hippolyti Opera, i. p. viiii—x., and ibid. 1. 42—47, and
Ruggieri, p. 478—493, (cf. pp. 518. 520, 522. 525,) where nu-
merous examples of these designations are given; Ruggieri sums
up the testimony of Christian Antiquity concerning St. Hippoly-
tus as follows, p. 493: ‘‘ All doubt concerning his Episcopate
will vanish, si disertissima Prudentii, Leontii, Anastatii aliorum-
que qui IV Ecclesiz Szeculo usque ad Nicephorum XIII. se-
culi Scriptorem floruerunt testimonia sedulo perpendere volumus,
qui uno ore testantur magnum Hippolytum Episcopum et Mar-
tyrem, vel Portuensis Ecclesiz Pastorem, vel Romanum, id est
Romane Provincize Episcopum fuisse.” :

* Ruggieri, p. 522. Veteres “S. Hippolytum Episcopum
Romanum vocant ; quia Portuensis Episcopus fuit, quee urbs in
Suburbicaria Provincia sita est, quam Greeci Romam yocant.”

St. Hippolytus, Bishop of Portus. 11

be considered as a mark of her respectful homage to
his memory, and as a pledge of her readiness to re-
ceive with favour whatsoever comes before her, bear-
ing the impress of his venerable name.

CHAPTER II.

?

THE “ PHILOSOPHUMENA;” OR, REFUTATION OF
HERESY.

THE discovery of a theological work, dating from so
early a period as the first half of the third century,
is an important event in the History of the Christian
Church. It is one which we ourselves have been
permitted to see.

A learned Greek, Minoides Mynas, having been
despatched by M. Villemain, Minister of Public In-
struction under King Louis Philippe, with a com-
mission to make. researches in Greek Monasteries ~
for ancient MSS., brought back some literary trea-
sures of this description from Mount Athos in the
year 1842. Some of these were deposited in the
Royal Library at Paris; and among them was a
Greek MS., which was first carefully examined by
M. Emmanuel MItter, already known to the world
from his official position in that national collec-
tion, and distinguished by the courtesy with which
he has promoted the designs of foreigners desirous of

Refutation of Heresy. 13

access ' to its literary riches, and by the publication
of some remains of ancient Literature. The work in
question was prepared for publication under the edi-
torial superintendence of M. Miller, and was first
printed at the instance and under the encourage-
ment of the Delegates of the University Press at
Oxford, where it appeared in the year 1851—rather
more than sixteen centuries after its composition.

This Volume, thus resuscitated in a remarkable
manner, has been found to possess special claims to
public attention. Itis valuable from its antiquity, and
from its contents: it is valuable as a Philosophical
work, and also as a Theological and Historical one.

It consisted, when perfect, of Ten Books. Of
those ten, the second and third, and the commence-
ment of the fourth, do not appear to be now extant.
The first Book is not contained in the Parisian MS.,
but had been already known to the world from a
MS. of Cardinal Ottoboni, and from three other
MSS., and had been printed in the Benedictine
edition of the works of Origen ’°.

The design of its Author was to give an account in
the first four Books, of the various systems of ancient
Philosophy, physical and ethical*®. This portion was

? To which the writer of these lines had occasion to bear tes-
timony some years since. Diary in France, p. 90. 101, 2nd
edit. 1846.

? Vol. i. p. 872—909, ed. Paris, 1733. It was first printed from
a Medicean MS. in vol. x. p. 579, of Gronovii Thesaurus Ant,

Greec.
* The following is the Author’s description of his own work,

14 The Philosophumena ;

intended to be introductory to the rest. The writer
then proceeds to treat of the various heresies in order
of time, which had appeared in the Christian Church,
from the first promulgation of the Gospel, down to
his own age. Here then, in the fifth book, the work
becomes theological, and here it is his purpose to
show that (as St. Irenzeus* and Tertullian ® had ob-
served) the dogmatic systems of heretics had their
foundation,—not in Scripture,—but in the schools of
Heathen Metaphysics. He disputes their claim to
originality, and treats them as plagiarisms from Pagan
Philosophy.

The circumstances now stated, with regard to the
materials of which this work is composed, will suggest
the reason why it bore a double title. It is inscribed
‘* PHILOSOPHUMENA; 07, 2 REFUTATION of all HERE-
sites °.” The former of these two titles describes the
contents of the first four Books: the second title
designates the succeeding five; and both titles are

lib. x. p. 311: ovprepurraBdvres Ta ravtrwv tov tap "EdAyot
codpov ddypara ev Técoapar BuBXriLots, Ta Se ToIs aiperitpyats ev
mWévTE, viv Tov TeEpl GAnOcias Adyov ev Evi (Cod. Eva) érideiSoper,
dvaxepadaovpevor TP@Tov TA Tact SedoKnpEVa.

* S. Iren. ii. xiv. 2.

° Heereticorum Patriarchze Philosophi, says Tertullian adv.
Hermogen. c. 8, illi sapientize professores de quorum ingeniis
omnis hzresis animatur. De Anima, c. 8. 28. De Preeser,
Heeret., c. 30. See also S. Jerome, Epist. 84, where he speaks
of Tatian and others, who had traced heresies to philosophical
sects.

* pirocodovpeva, 7) KaTa Tacav atipécewv eXeyxos.

or, Refutation of Heresy. 15

applicable to the last or tenth Book, which is an
Epitome of the others; and concludes with a decla-
ration of the truth, in an address to the Gentile
world.

In the sixth and seventh Books the Author is
often treading on the same ground as that traversed
by St. Irenzeus in his work on Heresies, to whom
he acknowledges his obligations (p. 202. 222), and
from whom he frequently transcribes, either verbatim,
or with some modifications. And here we may ob-
serve, in passing, is a circumstance which imparts
a peculiar value to the newly discovered Treatise.
In some instances it presents to us the original Greek
of Irenzus, where till now we possessed only the
Latin Version. The recovery of this work is a re-
covery, in part, of the text of Ireneus. In some
places, it will enable a future Editor of Irenzus to
restore Irenzeus to himself’.

The two last Books of this Volume are those
which impart to its discovery an historical importance,
which it is not easy, at present, adequately to ap-
preciate. Time alone can show in all its bear-
ing the full importance of this work, composed
sixteen centuries ago, and discovered in the nine-
teenth century in a monastery of Greece, by a Greek
sent from Paris by the French Government, and
presented to the world for the first time, under the

7 Some evidence of this may be seen in p. 203 of the Philoso-

phumena, and following pages. See also the passages cited in
the Ecclesiastic, LX VII. p. 47.

16 The Philosophumena ;

editorship of a French scholar, in an English Uni-
versity. Time, it is probable, will prove that the
hand ofan all-wise and merciful Providence may
be distinctly seen in its preservation, and also in its
publication at the present critical juncture in the
History of the Church and the World.

On what grounds, it may be enquired, do we en-
tertain such anticipations ? Because, we would reply,
this newly discovered work unfolds to us, in the
ninth Book, a portion of ancient Church-History
with which hitherto we have had comparatively
but little acquaintance, from the lack of mate-
rials for an accurate knowledge with respect to
it. The writer lived at a period prior to that of
our most ancient Ecclesiastical Historians. He was
anterior to Eusebius by a century. He does much
to fill up a chasm in the Annals of the Western
Church. And the portion of Church-History with
which he deals is one of great importance to us, on
account of its relation to certain questions of Chris-
tian Doctrine and Church Discipline, which possess
more than ordinary interest, and exercise more than
common influence, at the present time.

The writer places us at Rome; he describes, with
graphic exactness, events which took place in the
Church of Rome in the second and third centuries
after Christ. He does not speak on hearsay; but as
an eye-witness. And not only so, he represents
himself as occupying an important position in the
Church of Rome at that time, and as taking a pro-

or, Refutation of Heresy. 17

minent part in the occurrences which he narrates.
In a word, we have here a Suffragan Bishop of the
Roman Church, in the third century, presenting us
with a Memoir of his own Time.

Inasmuch as this portion of the work is of a
special character, and forms a substantive whole, and
possesses peculiar claims on public attention at pre-
sent, it appeared to deserve consideration, whether
it might not be detached from the rest, and offered
separately to the English reader in his own lan-
guage, as well as in the original Greek.

Hence the present publication.

The Author of the newly-discovered work might
now be left to speak for himself, and to recite his
own history—and it would be irrelevant and almost
presumptuous to anticipate him, even by a_ brief
summary of his narrative. But, as has been already
observed, we have here an Author professing to be a
Roman Bishop, and presenting us with a “ History
of his own time.” Have we here a Roman Huet ?
Have we, some may say, a Roman Burnet of the
third century? Is his recital trustworthy? This is
an important question. The reply must depend on
the writer’s character. And to determine this, we
must ascertain, who is the Author? what is the evi-
dence of his veracity ?

This let us endeavour to do.

CHAPTER IIL.

THE PHILOSOPHUMENA; OR, REFUTATION OF
HERESY—-ITS AUTHOR.

Tue Treatise now before us bears on its exterior the
name of OricEN’. It has the same name inserted in
its title, and inscribed on its back. Some of the
copyists, also, who transcribed it many centuries ago,
assioned it to Origen. And we read, also, the words
“doctrine of Origen,” noted by an ancient hand in
the margin of the Volume’. And the first book of
it, which (as was before observed) had been already
known to the world, has been ascribed to him in no
less than four MSS., and had been admitted: into
Editions of that Father’s Works *.

Is it then from the pen of OrIGEN ?

1 Its title is, ‘Qpryévovs prrocodpotpeva, 7) kara racadv aipécewv
éXeyxos. Origenis Philosophumena, sive Omnium Heeresium
Refutatio: e Codice Parisino nunc primum edidit Emmanuel
Miller. Oxonii, e Typographeo Academico, 1851, p. 339.

? P. 334. ’Optyévys kat ‘Opryevors ddéa.

* Origenis Opera, ed. Car. Delarue, iv. voll. Paris, 1733.
Vol. I. pp. 873—909.

The Philosophumena—its Author. 19

We must reply to this question in the negative.

1. It has been a common practice, in ancient and
modern times, to ascribe works,—especially anony-
mous works,—to illustrious persons. A book, wan-
dering about the world without a name, is, and ever
has been, an unattractive thing. Such Books had a
tendency to acquire for themselves the name of a
creditable author, just as, in course of time, name-
less pictures assume the name of some well-known
Master. The same motives which tempted some
persons, who possessed more leisure than honesty, to
compose works, and then to father them on great
men, induced Copyists and Dealers in Manuscripts
to assign celebrated names to the works which they
themselves had transcribed or had purchased, and
exposed to sale*. The name of Origen was the
likeliest to occur to a person who was in quest of
an Author for the present Treatise. Origen lived
at the time from which this Treatise dates, and at
which its Author flourished. Origen wrote in Greek.
Origen was also a voluminous Writer. It would
be more difficult to say what he had not written,
than what he fad. He was well versed in systems
of Philosophers, as well as in theories of Heretics;
and, therefore, it would appear probable, that any
anonymous Greek treatise—such as that before us—
might be more safely assigned to Origen than to
any one else; and that it would pass under his

* See Bentley, Dissert. on Phalaris, pp. 6—8, ed. Lond. 1777.
c2

20 The Philosophumena ;

name without further enquiry. A _ list of works,
erroneously assigned to Origen, may be seen in the
“Origeniana” of Huet °, who states various reasons
for such an ascription. We shall have occasion to
observe hereafter, that another anonymous work,
similar in some respects to the present, was from
the pen of the same writer as composed the present
Treatise, and that z¢ was ascribed to Origen.

2. With regard to the words “ Doctrine of Origen,”
inscribed by some ancient Copyist on the margin of
a passage in this Treatise,—these do not appear to
afford any argument (as has been supposed by some)
for the ascription of this work to Origen, but rather
the contrary. Silius Italicus, it is well known, was
an admirer and imitator of Virgil, as Virgil was of
Ennius. We should be much surprised to find, in
MSS. of the “ Punica” of Silius, the words “ Versus
Silii” noted at the side of one of the lines in that
Poem, as we should be surprised to find a marginal
note, “ Versus Maronis,” annexed to a line of the
Aineid. But we should not be astonished to find
the words “ Versus Virgilii” appended as a marginal
comment to a line of Silius; or to read the words
“Versus Ennii” annexed to a line of Virgil. But
we should not thence infer that the “Punic War” was
written by Virgil, or that the Atneid was composed
by Ennius, or that the marginal annotator had ima-

* Appendix to lib. iii. in the ivth Volume of the Benedictine
Edition, p. 321. See also the Preface to that edition, p. xiii.

or, Refutation of Heresy—its Author. 21

gined that this was the case—but the contrary.
And so the words, “ Doctrine of Origen,” do not
appear to intimate, that in the copyist’s opinion
“the Philosophumena” was written by Origen, but
that it was composed by some person who (in his
view) had imitated or expressed the opinion of
Origen, in that particular passage to which the mar-
ginal note was annexed.

3. The first book of the Philosophumena has, it is
true, been inserted in editions of Origen’s works.
But the editors of Origen have avowed their belief,
that the Treatise is not his®: and the recent dis-
covery of the main portion of the remainder has
corroborated their judgment.

Their opinion that the work is not by Origen
was grounded on a passage occurring in the first
Book’, where the Author describes himself as “a
successor of the Apostles, a partaker with them in
the same grace and principal-sacerdocy, and doctor-
ship *, and as numbered among the guardians of the
Church.” These words, they very justly observe,
could only have been employed by a Bishop, speak-
ing of himself. Origen was not a Bishop; and he
was distinguished by modesty, as well as by learn-

* Origenis Opera, i. p. 873, ed. Bened. 1733. Huet. Orige-
niana, iii. Appendix xi. vol. iv. p. 527.

” Philosophumena, p. 3, 1. 63, ed. Miller.

® dpxuepareia. Compare the language of Tertullian de Bapt.
c. 17: “Dandi baptismum quidem habet jus summus sacerdos, qui
est E'piscopus.”’

22 The Philosophumena ;

ing. He would not, therefore, have written thus.
Therefore, the Author of the Philosophumena is
not Origen.

4, Again: Origen, it is true, visited Rome at a par-
ticular time which falls within the period described
in the present Volume. He came to Rome in the
Pontificate of Zephyrinus ; but his visit was of brief
duration®. Origen was only a sojourner at Rome
for a short stay. The Author of the Philoso-
phumena appears to have spent the greater part of
his life at Rome, or near it. It is clear, from the
narrative contained in the portion of the Philoso-
phumena laid before the reader in this Volume,
that the Writer was at Rome, or its neighbourhood,
before the Pontificate of Zephyrinus, that he re-
mained there during that Pontificate—which was not
a short one, but lasted nearly twenty years—and
that he continued there till after the death of Cal-
listus, the Successor of Zephyrinus. Therefore, this
Treatise was not written by Origen.

5. Besides: the Author of the Philosophumena de-
scribes himself as holding an important office in the
Roman Church; he represents himself as having
exercised ecclesiastical discipline there, and as having

° &@a od roAd diatpivas, says Euseb. vi. 14. Origen is said,

by St. Jerome (de Vir. Illust. c. 61, and by Nicephorus Callist.
iv. 31), to have been among the hearers who listened to a sermon
by St. Hippolytus, who was Bishop of Portus near Rome. This
was probably on the occasion of this visit.

or, Fefutation of Heresy—its Author. 23

separated certain persons from Church-communion
by sentence of excommunication '.

Nothing of this kind could be said of Origen ;
therefore we are again brought to the conclusion
that the treatise before us was not written by him.

6. Men’s opinions alter ; their tempers are liable to
change; but facts are immutable. Hence, in this
question of authorship, it appears more safe to dwell
on circumstantial evidence, than to lay stress on
discrepancies of thought and manner as visible in
this Treatise, when contrasted with what is seen in
undoubted works of Origen.

Yet such characteristics merit consideration. And
they serve to confirm the opinion already stated, that
the Volume before us is not attributable to him.

7. For example; our Author’ speaks at large of
the Noetian heresy, and its adherents, who dwelt on
certain detached and isolated words of Scripture,
and, relying on them, contended * that the First and
Second Persons of the Blessed Trinity are only
two different Names of the same Divine Being.
His language, concerning these parties, is that of
one who had recently had experience of the evils to
which their false teaching led, and who had been
engaged in a painful struggle with the abettors of
that heresy.

* Book ix. 12, pp. 290. 35.
? Lib. viii. pp. 276, 277; ix. pp. 278—291.
* §. Hippol.c. Noet. iii. apud Routh Script, Eccles. Opuse. p. 48.

a 4 ] 5 a 6 Vip a , X ,
TAUTa BovdAovras OUT OLIYVELTUGL, KAL AUTOLS MPOVOKMAG XPwpy-evol,—

24 The Philosophumena ;

But how different is the tone of Origen when
treating of the same subject! In a spirit of calm
philosophy, of ingenious tolerance, and inventive
charity, he suggests circumstances of extenuation,
and almost pleads for the erring while he deplores
their errors. He observes, what was doubtless true,
that the Noetians recoiled from an opposite heresy,
which disparaged the dignity of the Son, and de-
graded Him to the level of an ordinary man, ani-
mated by the Spirit of God, and that thus, through
fear of an heretical dogma, they had lapsed uncon-
sciously into heresy *. |

This was a liberal view. It was suited to the po-

* Origen, in Matth. T. xvii. § 14, says that they err davracig
rod SofdLew xpiorov, and in Johan., Tom. ii. c. 2, calls them diAo-
Oéovs <lvat evxopévovs, and offers also some apology for them as
evAaBovpevors vo avayopedoat Geovs, kal wapa TotTo TapuTimrovTas
Wevdeor kal doéBeor Sdypac, vol. i. p. 92. Lommatzsch. See
also Origen, Fragm. ex libro in Epist. ad Titum, ed. Lommatzsch
V. 287, ne videantur duos deos dicere, neque rursum negare Sal-
vatoris Deitatem, unam eandemque subsistentiam Patris ac Filii
asseverant, i. e. duo quidem nomina secundum diversitatem cau-
sarum recipientem, unam tamen iéoracw subsistere, 7. e. unam
Personam duobus nominibus subjacentem, qui Latine Patri-
passiani appellantur. Origen’s success in dealing with Beryllus
of Bosra is well known, Euseb. vi. 33. S. Jerom. de YViris.
Illust. c. 60, and was probably due to his Christian temper not
less than to his profound learning. otk dy fyta kal dppyra
Aێyourev Gv tots GAAa SogdLovras, he says, c. Cels. v. p. 273,
ovx dy dmroorvyjcaey Tovs mapaxapdtrovras Ta xpurTiavic pod,
he says in a spirit which can hardly be reconciled with the
language of the present Treatise.

or, Refutation of Heresy—its Author. 25

sition and genius of Origen, who beheld the strife
from afar. But it was not to be expected from one
who was actively engaged in the battle. And, how-
ever this may be, certainly nothing can be more
different than the temper and tone with which the
Patripassian heresy and its promoters are regarded
and described in the works of Origen on the one
side, and in the Philosophumena on the other. He
who wrote the former could hardly have written the
latter. Therefore again it would appear that the
Author of the Philosophumena is not Origen.

8. One more remark of this kind. The opinion of
Origen with regard to future punishments is well
known. The same feelings which induced him to
palliate the errors of heretics, beguiled him into
exercising his ingenuity in tampering with the decla-
rations of Scripture concerning the eternal duration
of the future punishment of sin®. Thus false charity
betrayed him into heresy.

But the author of the Philosophumena speaks a
very different language. He does indeed, at the
close of his work, address an affectionate invitation
to the heathen world. He portrays with glowing
and rapturous eloquence, the dignity, blessedness,
and glory of those privileges which would be theirs,
if they were Christ’s. He describes the immense
love of God in Christ to the world, and His earnest
desire for their salvation, and he exhorts them to

* See Origen, 19. Homil. in Jerem. Tom. iii. p. 267. De
Prine. i. 6.

26 The Philosophumena—its Author.

accept God’s gracious offers, and to enter the Church
of Christ. But he does not pause there. He pre-
sents to them in dark colours another alternative.
He describes the woe and the anguish to which they
will be doomed, if they refuse to hearken to God.
He displays the boiling surge of the never-ebbing
lake of fire °, and the excruciating agonies of those
who are lost. He labours to prevail on them to
escape from the wrath to come, and to attain the
happiness of the blessed, by declaring to them, in
God’s name, that the pains of hell and the joys of
heaven are not temporal, but eternal ’.

Such is his mode of dealing with that solemn
subject. He builds his charity on faith, and speaks
the truth in love.

Probably enough has been said here and else-
where, to satisfy the reader that the author of the
Treatise before us is not Origen.

Let us pass to another name.
® Philosophumena, pp. 338. 4, Bpacpov devaov Aipvys.

” Compare the similar statements of doctrine by St. Irenzeus,
iv. 78; v. 27.

CHAPTER IV.

ANOTHER NAME CONSIDERED.

Ir is a remarkable circumstance, that very few of
the Roman Poets were natives of Rome. Catul-
lus, Virgil, Horace, Ovid, Juvenal, Persius, were born
in provincial towns of Italy. Many, also, of the
Roman Poets, as they are commonly called, were not
even natives of the Italian soil. Africa gave birth
to Terence; Lucan, Seneca, and Martial, were from
Spain. The same is true also of the most distin-
guished Orators, Philosophers, and Historians, whose
names are generally connected with that of Rome.
Scarcely one of the most eminent Roman writers
was born within the walls of Rome. A similar re-
mark may be made with regard to the early Ec-
clesiastical writers and distinguished men of the
Latin Church. Few were connected by birth, or
even by residence, with Rome. Of the fourteen
Bishops who governed the Church of Rome during
the first two centuries, two only appear to have left
any reputation for literary attainments: St. Cle-
ment, whose Epistle to the Corinthian Church still

28 Another Name considered.

survives, and whose native country is uncertain; and
Victor, supposed to have been of Africa, who is re-
garded as the first Ecclesiastical Author who wrote
in the Latin tongue’. There are very few names,
of literary celebrity, which are in any way con-
nected with the Roman Church in the first three
centuries of the Christian era’.

Hence it would appear to be a not very difficult
task to discover the Author of the Treatise before
us.- He also puts into our hands three clues for his
identification—not to speak of others at present. He
represents himself—

1. As a Bishop ;

2. As taking an active part in the Ecclesiastical
affairs of Rome; and

3. As having written other Works, whose titles
he specifies.

Who was there, let us ask, that corresponded to
this description ?

The name of Origen, suggested by the title, being

1 §. Hieron. de Viris Illust., c. 34. 40. 53.

* The Historian Sozomen, who wrote early in the fifth century,
asserts that no Bishop of Rome nor any Ecclesiastic preached to
the people in his age. Sozomen, vii. 19, and see the note of
Valesius on the passage; and it is commonly asserted that no
Bishop of Rome delivered Sermons or Homilies in public before
Leo I., in the middle of the fifth century; but this seems to be
hardly reconcilable with the statement of Prudentius (born a.p.
348), Hymn. xi. 25 :—

Fronte sub adversa gradibus sublime tribunal
Tollitur, Antistes predicat unde Deum.

Another Name considered. 29

dismissed as untenable, perhaps the first person who
would present himself to the mind of an enquirer
as a candidate for the authorship of this Treatise,
would be Carus. He is known to have been a
Presbyter of the Roman Church in the episcopate of
Victor, and of Victor’s successor, Zephyrinus*; and
the Author of this Treatise lived in the age of
Victor and Zephyrinus. Caius is also known as a
learned and eloquent man, and as having conducted
a theological disputation, probably by the appoint-
ment of Zephyrinus *, with Proclus, a leader of the
Montanists at Rome, and to have gained honour
by the ability which he displayed on that occa-
sion. From the fragments which remain of his
controversial argument, we learn that he wrote in
Greek; and we are informed, that, being a Pres-
byter of Rome, he was promoted to the Episcopal
order °.

* Euseb. ii. 25; vi. 20. Phot. Cod. 48. Victor is generally
supposed to have sate in the see of Rome from a.p. 192 to a.v.
202; Zephyrinus from a.p. 202 to a.p. 218. Jaffe Regesta Pon-
tificum, p. 5.

* Hence, perhaps, the assertion of Optatus i. 9: Marcion, Prax-
eas, Sabellius, Valentinus et ceteri usque ad Cataphrygas tem-
poribus suis a Victorino Pictaviensi, Zephyrino Urbico (i. e.
Episcopo Urbis Rome), et a Tertulliano Carthaginensi et aliis
adsertoribus Ecclesize Catholice superati sunt.

5 Phot. Cod. 48. rodrov rov Taiov rperBitrepdov hacw yeye-
vnoOa THs Kata “Popnv éxxAnolas éxi Odixropos Kai Zedupivov
dpxlepewv, xetporovnbjvat Sé ai’rov KAI EONON éxicxorov, where
Fabricius reads KAI AOQHNON. A change in the reading may
perhaps be necessary, since the Romans themselves were é0vn,

30 Another Name considered.

Thus he appears to satisfy some of the most im-
portant conditions of the present case.

Another point, also, may be noticed here.

Among the Works which the writer of this Trea-
tise specifies as having been produced by himself, is
one entitled “On the Substance of the Universe °.”

Can we, then, ascertain the Author of that Work
—“On The Universe ?”

Photius, the Patriarch of Constantinople,—the
Statesman, Scholar, and Divine, of the ninth century,
in that rich storehouse of ancient literary lore, the
“Library” or bibliographical record’, which he
wrote when on a diplomatic mission as an ambas-
sador in Assyria, and in which he describes the con-
tents of the books he had read, refers to a Work 8,
called “The Labyrinth”—so named (it appears)
because its Author endeavoured to track certain
heretical teachers through their devious mazes, and
to enable others, who might be entangled in their
windings, to extricate themselves from them.

From the notice given by Photius of “The Laby-
rinth,” we learn, that the Author of it referred his

and St. Paul calls himself ¢@vGv dadéoroXov with reference to
Rome, Rom. xi. 18, and says iyiv rots €6veow in writing to Rome.
We might, therefore, perhaps read KAI EQOINON, i. e. though
presbyter of Rome, Caius, as practised in writing and speaking
Greek, was consecrated a Bishop of the Easterns.

° pp. 334. 78. eicovrat, évruxdvres judv BiBAw wepexovon mept
THS TOD TavTos ovTlas.

” See Fabricius, Harles. x. p. 678.

* Phot. Bibl. Cod. 48.

Another Name considered. 31

readers to another work of his own composition’ —a
work “On the Substance of the Universe '.”

By whom then was “ The Labyrinth” written ?

If we can discover this, we shall have ascertained
the Author of our own Treatise; and of the Trea-
tise on the Universe. Indeed, if the question con-
cerning the authorship of any one of these three
Treatises is settled, the question also would seem to
be decided concerning the other two.

* M. Bunsen says (“* Hippolytus and his Age,” i. p. 248), that
the ‘* Author of the ‘ Cause of the Universe’ referred to the ‘ Little
Labyrinth’ as his.” This is an oversight. Indeed the reverse
was the fact. Photius informs us (Cod. 48) that the Author of
the ‘* Labyrinth” referred to the work on “‘ the Universe.” The
ingenious author of “‘ Hippolytus and his Age” is somewhat
severe in his strictures on the Patriarch of Constantinople, and
charges him not unfrequently, and not very fairly, with writing
carelessly and inaccurately; but a little more attention to the
words of Photius would have saved M. Bunsen from the error
which has just been noticed, and from some others. A Constanti-
nopolitan envoy in Assyria in the ninth century did not possess
the advantages for the revision of his works which he would
enjoy if he were resident in England in the nineteenth ; and perhaps
the distinguished Author of “‘ Hippolytus and his Age” may have
ample cause to ask for the indulgence which he has not been
disposed to concede to Photius and to many others that might be

named.
** 7Equum est
Peccatis veniam poscentem reddere rursus.”
* & 7G TéAL TOD AaBupivOov Sievapriparo éavrod elvat Tov wept
THs TOD mavrds ovaias Adyov. This work, says Photius (Cod. 48),
was entitled in some MSS. epi rijs rod ravrds airias, in others,
wT. 7. T. 7. ovoias: in others, repi rod wavrés. He appears to have
seen various MSS. of it.

32 Another Name considered.

On reference to the words of Photius, already
noticed, it would seem at first sight that we have
there a solution of the problem.

The Labyrinth, writes Photius, has been ascribed
to Origen’, but “they say that it is by Carus ’.”

Photius then mentions that the Author of the
Labyrinth referred to the Treatise on the Universe
as written by himself *.

Here our first impression would be that the ques-
tion before us was now set at rest.

We feel disposed to acknowledge Catus, the cele-
brated Roman presbyter of the second and third
century, as the author of the newly-discovered Trea-
tise, and of the two other works that have been men-
tioned, from the same pen. |

But when we proceed to examine the evidence
more closely, we find reason to retract, or, at least
to suspend, our judgment.

Photius appears to hesitate, except as to the iden-
tity of the Author of the Labyrinth and of the
Treatise on the Universe.

He had the Treatise on the Universe as well
as the Labyrinth in his Library. He describes its
contents®. He says that this Treatise having been

? See also Theodoret. hzeret. fabul. ii. 5.

? Phot. Cod. 48: Taiov, 6v pace ovvrdga kai rov AaBVvpivGOov.
He is reporting their opinion when he adds, Tatov éori révyya TH
édnbeia tod cvvreraxdros Tov AaPipuOor.

* Ibid. & 7d réAe Tod AaBupivOov Sieuapriparo éavrod civar Tov

~ “~ 5
Tept THS TOD TavTos Ovatas Adyov. Cod. 48.

Another Name considered. 33

left anonymous, had been attributed by some to
Josephus °, by others to Justin Martyr, and by others
to [renzeus, and that in a marginal note in his MS.,
it was assigned to Caius, “who, they say, wrote the
Labyrinth, the author of which states at the end of
it that he wrote the work on the Universe.”

“ But (says Photius) whether it was written by
Caius, or by another,—zs not yet manifest to me’.”

Thus then, we do not feel justified in awarding

* The patriarch of Constantinople is charged with great want
of discernment in ascribing a Christian work to a Jewish His-
torian. (Bunsen, pp. 151, 152.) It is not probable that such a
notion was due to Photius. He expressly states, that he does
not know who wrote the “ Labyrinth ;” which is tantamount to a
declaration that he did not know who wrote the book on the
Universe. Besides, the statements in Josephus concerning John
the Baptist (Antiq. xviii. 5), concerning Christ (xviii. 3) (a pas-
sage generally regarded as genuine by the Christian Fathers),
and concerning James the just (Ant. xx. 9), had rendered it not
so improbable that Josephus should write in the tone of a Chris-
tian. After all, the other names with which that of Josephus is
associated, viz. the names of Jrenzeus and Justin Martyr, afford a
presumption that the name of Josephus had been introduced by an
error of the copyists into the MS. seen by Photius. The word
Josephus was often written by the ancients Joseppus. (See Vales.
and Euseb., i. 10.) (Gr. “Idonros, “Idonrros.) Whence (as I be-
lieve has been suggested by others) it is likely that the name of
the Jewish Historian, ‘Imayos, had supplanted that of the Chris-
tian Historian “Hyjourros. The names Hegesippus or (as some-
times written) Egesippus, and Josippus, are confounded in ancient
MSS. (see Routh. Reliq. i. 254); and Hegesippus is often as-
sociated with Justin Martyr. Cf. Grabe, Spicileg., ii. 203—214.

” ovrw pou yeyovey evdnAov.

D

34 Another Name considered.

this work, and the other two connected with it, to
Catus, on the authority of Photius.

2. Other considerations also may deter us from
making such an assignment.

Notices of Caius have been left by Eusebius
and St. Jerome. It is their practice to specify the
titles of the works written by the persons whom
they commemorate. They mention the disputation
of Caius against Montanism. But neither Eusebius
nor St. Jerome mentions any one of these three
works just specified, as written by Caius.

It would not be surprising that one of these three
works should not have been noticed by them in their
account of the author of the three; but it is very
improbable that a// the three should have been
omitted by them both; especially in the case of such
a person as Caius, who was a distinguished man, but
not (as far as we know) a voluminous writer.

It is not, therefore, probable that Caius wrote
these three works; and since they were all written by
the same author, therefore none of them was written
by Caius; and therefore it would seem, on this
ground, that we must look elsewhere for the Author
of the newly-discovered treatise before us.

3. Again; the Treatise before us was written after
the Episcopate of Zephyrinus; for it speaks of his
death °.

Now the disputation of Caius with Proclus the

* P. 288. 96. pera tiv Tod Zehupivou reevryv.

Another Name considered. 35

Montanist took place in the Episcopate of Zephyri-
nus; and the impression we receive from Church
History is, that the reputation of Caius was mainly
derived from his success in that controversy. It
appears to have been the principal public event of
his professional life.

The Author of the newly-discovered Treatise, which,
it is to be remembered, is designed to be a History
of Heresies, as well as a Refutation of them, refers
to other works written by himself.

Now, at the close of his Eighth Book, he comes
to speak of Montanus, and of the Montanistic tenets.
He treats their heresy very lightly and briefly ; indeed
he hardly regards it as a heresy®; and takes care to
inform his readers that the Montanists are orthodox
in the main articles of the Faith.

If a person had taken up arms against Montanism
as Caius did, and if he had composed and published
a Work in refutation of Montanism as Caius had
done, and if his name had been honourably associated,
and almost identified, with the controversy which
the Church carried on against Montanus, it does not
appear to be probable that he would have spoken of
Montanism as the Author of this Treatise does speak.

And if the Author of this Treatise had written
against Montanism, it is probable, that, since he says

® Philosophumena, p. 275. He calls them aiperixdrepot, sub-
heretici ; and adds, otro. tov pev Ilarépa trav GAwv @cdv Kal wav-
Tov KTLoTIV Gpoiws TH ExkAnoia dporoyoter, Kai doa 7d EbayyéAvov
Tept TOU Xpicrov papTrupel.
D2

36 Another Name considered.

so little on that subject in this Treatise, and since it
is his practice to refer his reader to his other
works as supplementary to the present, he would
have referred to his work on Montanism for further
information on that matter. In a word, either Caius
would not have spoken of Montanism, as the Author
of this Treatise speaks; or, if he had spoken as he
does, he would have said something more on that
subject than this Author does say.

Therefore, on this ground also, we may infer that
this Treatise was not written by Carus.

4. Besides, the Author of this Treatise, as we have
seen, touches briefly on Montanism in the Highth
Book. He then passes on to another heresy, that of
the Encratites; and, after a few words upon them,
he brings the Eighth Book to a close.

And how does he begin the Ninth ?

With a special Preface, a somewhat elaborate one,
in which he states, that having described various
Heresies, and having refuted them in the preceding
Books of this Treatise, he is now entering a new
field in the Ninth Book, and is approaching the most
difficult toil of all. And what is that? To refute
the Heresies that arose in his own time’. |

It is clear then that he does not regard Montanism
as a heresy of his own time. |

But Caius took an active part in refuting Mon-

* See Book IX. pp. 278, 279. The English reader may see the
passages at length in the Translation in the Second Part of the
present Volume.

Another Name considered. 37

tanism. It was by his refutation of it that he had
gained his renown. Caius would never have de-
scribed Montanism as a heresy of the past. He
would not, and could not have written, concerning
it, as this Author writes.

Therefore, again, we are brought to the conclusion
that this Treatise was not written by Carus.

5. Once more. The Montanists against whom
Caius argued, referred to the Apocalypse of St. John,
as affording Scriptural authority to their prophetical
rhapsodies and millenarian reveries. Caius, who
seems to have been eminent for zeal, not always
guided by discretion, appears to have encountered
this argument by questioning the genuineness of the
Apocalypse*. And, there is too good reason for

* As this seems to be doubted by some learned persons, let it
be observed that it is evident from the testimony of Dionysius,
Bp. of Alexandria, in Euseb., vii. 25, when rightly punctuated,
that the genuineness of the Apocalypse had been denied by some
in the Church, and that it had also been ascribed by them to
Cerinthus, who (they said) had assigned it falsely to St. John, in
order to gain currency for his own millenarian opinions under
the authority of St. John’s name. And that Caius was among
those persons in the Church to whom Dionysius refers, appears (I
conceive) from Euseb., iii. 28, where, after mentioning that Caius
had alleged that Cerinthus sought to gain credence for his
Chiliasm under the authority of ‘‘ Revelations, as if written by
a great Apostle,” he immediately proceeds to cite the words of
Dionysius concerning the Apocalypse of St. John, as quoted also
in another place (Euseb., vii. 25). See also Mill. Proleg. in N.T.,
654 ; Grabe, Spicileg., t. i. p, 312; Gieseler, Eccl. Hist., § 59;

who affirm that Caius attributed the Apocalypse to Cerinthus.

38 Another Name considered.

believing that he was carried so far in his animosity
avainst the fanatical dogmas derived by the Mon-
tanists from the Apocalypse, that he was not satisfied
with denying the genuineness of that Book, but he
even proceeded to the length of ascribing it to a
heretic, Cerinthus.

If it should appear improbable that such an error
as this should be committed bya distinguished person
like Caius, a presbyter of the Roman Church; let it
be remembered that, as was before observed, the
Church of Rome was not eminent for learning at
that time. Let it be remembered also, that the
Church of Rome herself was induced by a similar
fear of erroneous consequences *, to surrender another
Canonical Book of Holy Scripture—The Epistle to
the Hebrews *. The learning of the Church was
then mainly in the East. It was by the influence of
the East on the West, that the Church of Rome
was enabled to recover that Epistle. It was also the
influence of the Apocalyptic Churches of Asia, ex-
erted particularly through St. Ireneeus and his scholar
St. Hippolytus in the West, that preserved the Apo-

* First of Montanism, then of Novatianism. Philastr. de
Heres., § 89.

* It does not appear in the ancient Canon of the Roman Church
(Routh, Rel. Sac., iv. p. 2); and St. Jerome says, iii. p. 60 (ed.
Bened.), ‘‘ Epistola ad Hebrzeos quam Latina consuetudo non re-
cipit ;” he says, ii. p. 608, ‘‘ Eam Latina consuetudo non recipit ;”
but he says “inter Scripturas Canonicas ab Ecclesiis Orientis
suscipitur et ab omnibus retrd Ecclesiasticis Greeci sermonis
scriptoribus.”

Another Name considered. 39

calypse, as an inspired work of St. John, to the
Church of Rome.

It becomes then a question for consideration in
reference to the present Treatise,—

Does the Author speak of the Apocalypse? If so,
in what terms ?

In the Seventh Book * he is describing the hereti-
cal opinions and licentious practices of the Nico-
laitans.

He thus writes®. “ Nicolas, one of the seven who
was ordained to the Diaconate by the Apostles, was
the cause of a great aggregate of evils, who, hay-
ing fallen away from sound doctrine, taught indif-
ferentism of morals and of knowledge.”

The rest is important, but the text is somewhat
corrupt.

The original in the Paris Manuscript is as follows:
ov Tovs mantras évuBpifov 7d Td” Ayiov IIvedpa bia Tis
"Arroxarivews "Iwdvvov Hreyxe Topvetovtas Kat eidwrOOuTa
éaOlovtas".

The sense clearly is, “ Whose disciples, 2. e. the dis-
ciples of Nicolas . . . . the Holy Spirit rebuked by
the Apocalypse of St. John, committing fornication,
and eating things offered to idols.”

> .P:.258.

® odds 88 abrav cvotdcews KaKdv aitios yeyévytas NuxdAaos,
dls trav éra eis Staxoviay bd trav droardAwy Karacrabels, ds dzo-
oras THs Kat ed@ciav Sidacxadias ediSacxev ddiadhopiay Biov Te Kai
yvoceus.

7 P, 259.95. M. Miller reads ob rods pabyras eévuBpiLovras
7d d&yuv Ivedpa dud ris Aroxadtiews “lwdviys pAcyxe-

40 Another Name considered.

He refers to the Book of Revelation, ii. 6. 14, 15.
He quotes it as inspired, and as the work of St.
John *.

But what is to be made of the words ENYTBPI-
ZON TO? M. Miller proposes évu8pifovras; we
may perhaps read EN TBPEI ZONTAX, living in
licentiousness.

This passage, like many others in the Treatise be-
fore us, is almost a transcript from the work of St.
Ireneeus against heresy’: and thus, as was before
noticed, it helps us to the original Greek of that ve-
nerable writer, in many places where we possess him
now only in the old Latin version.

It may also be added, that the text of our Trea-
tise may be often corrected from Irenzeus.

* It is observable that the Author of the Treatise on the Uni-
verse appears to refer to the Apocalypse. See Fabric. Hippol., i.
220: Aipvy tupds, K.T.X.

* Another correction—perhaps more probable—is offered by a
writer in the Ecclesiastic, LX VII. p. 57, e&vvBpi€ov 70 a. =.
Some doubts may be felt concerning the propriety of the word
evuBpilw, as applied to the Holy Spirit, and used with an accusative
case ; but perhaps they may be removed by reference to p. 265. 33,
@cds évuBpilwv dei trois KareAnppévors, and P. 287. 50, ot ‘Iov-
dato. €vuBpicavres aitov.

1 The passage in Irenzus is i. 27: ‘‘ Nicolaite magistrum
quidem habent Nicolaum, unum ex VII, qui primi ad diaconiam
ab Apostolis constituti sunt: qui indiscrete vivunt; plenissimé
autem per Joannis Apocalypsim manifestantur qui sint, nullam
differentiam esse docentes in moechando et idolothyton edere.
Quapropter dixit et de iis sermo Sed hoe habes quod odisti
opera Nicolaitarum que et ego odi.” (Apoc. ii. 6.)

_ Another Name considered. 41

Ireneeus, in the old Latin version, says of the
Nicolaitans, indiscreté vivunt; which perhaps our
Author represents by év t8peu favras’.

St. Irenzeus, we know, had a great veneration for
the Apocalypse, and quotes it very frequently (about
thirty times) as inspired, and as the work of the holy
Apostle and Evangelist, St. John. Our Author was
evidently a diligent reader of St. Irenzeus; and, in
the passage before us, he follows Irenzeus in acknow-
ledging the Genuineness and Inspiration of the Apo-
calypse.

Here then, as it seems, we have sufficient proof,
that the Author of this Treatise is not Carus of
Rome.

? As well as by édiSacxev ddvadopiav Biov.

CHAPTER V.

ANOTHER NAME.

In the year 1551, some excavations were made on
the Via Tiburtina, or road to Tivoli, not far from
the church of St. Lorenzo, near Rome. ‘The clear-
ing away of the accumulations of an ancient Ceme-
tery and Chapel on that site led to an interesting
discovery. A marble statue of a figure sitting in a
Chair was brought to light. The person there repre-
sented was of venerable aspect, bald, with a flowing
beard, and clad in the Greek pallium.

The two sides and back of the Chair were found to
be covered with Inscriptions in Greek uncial letters.
The right side of the Chair exhibits a Calendar,
which designates the days of the months of March
and April, with which the xivth of the moon coin-
cides. This Calendar, indicating the Paschal Full
Moons, is constructed for seven cycles of xvi years
each, dating from the first year of the Emperor
Alexander Severus, which is proved from this Calen-
dar to have been' a.p. 222. According to the

* See Clinton, Fasti Romani ad a.p. 222.

Another Name. 43

theory on which this Calendar is made, after the
completion of one cycle of sixteen years, the full
moons 7ecur on the same day of the month, but one .
day earlier in the week ; and the Table is formed so
as to represent in seven. columns the day on which
the full moon falls during seven periods of sixteen
years.

The other side of the Chair presents a Table, indi-
cating the Day on which the Easter Festival falls in
each year for the same period of seven cycles of
xvi years, dating also from a.p. 222. When the
xivth day of the moon falls on a Saturday, then
the Easter festival is not to be celebrated on the
morrow, or following Sunday, but on the Sunday
after that. This regulation was in accordance with
the Latin practice, but at variance with the Alex-
andrine custom’, according to which the Paschal
Festival might be solemnized from the xvth day of
the moon. This Paschal Table, also, is constructed
in seven columns of xvi years each, and indicates
the day of the month in which the Paschal Festival
would fall, from A.D. 222 to a.D. 333.

Many things in this Calendar betoken that it is
the work of a Western’, and that it was designed
for use in the Western Church.

The carved Back of the Chair, which was some-

? See Ideler, Chronologie, ii. p, 220.
$ Ideler, Chronologie, ii. p. 213: Dass er im Occident lebte
wird durch die von ihm befolgte rdémische Zeitrechnung ausser

Zweifel gesetzt,

44 Another Name.

what mutilated, presents a Catalogue of Titles of
Works—composed doubtless by the person who oe-
cupies the chair.

This Statue thus discovered was in a fragmentary
state, but was happily preserved by Cardinal Mar-
cello Cervino, afterwards Pope Marcellus II., and
was removed as a valuable monument of Christian
Antiquity to the Vatican, and was restored by the
aid of Roman Sculptors, as far as might be, to its
pristine form, under the auspices of Pope Pius IV.*

The Paschal Table inscribed on the sides of the
Chair dates, as has been stated, from the beginning
of the reign of Alexander Severus.

He ascended the imperial throne a.p. 222, when
Callistus was Bishop of Rome,—about two years
after the death of Zephyrinus, the Predecessor of
Callistus, that is to say, in the period described by
the Author of the Treatise before us, who represents
himself as living under Zephyrinus and his successor ;
and who in this work, which is entitled “ A Refuta-
tion of al/ Heresies,” mentions no heresy subsequent
to that age’.

Among the titles of Books inscribed on the Chair,
we find the following—“ On the Universe.”

* A representation of the three sides of the Statue and of the
inscription upon them may be seen in the edition of Hippolytus
by Fabricius, pp. 36—38; p. 74, folio, Hamburgh, 1716. On
the present position of the Statue in the Vatican, see Platner and
Bunsen’s Rome, ii. p. 320.

* Thus there is no mention of the Novatians, who date from
A.D. 251.

Another Name. 45

Our Author (as was before noticed) refers to a
book bearing this title, as written by himself.

Can we, then, ascertain who the personage, repre-
sented by the statue, is ?

If so, we have a clue to the authorship of our
Treatise.

In reply to this question, let it be observed, that
Eusebius and St. Jerome * have left Catalogues re-
spectively of Works composed by an eminent person
of that age.

Suffice it to say, that in those Catalogues they
specify a Paschal Cycle of sixteen years, similar to
that on the Statue.

They specify also other Works, which tally in the
main with the Catalogue on the Statue. What-
ever discrepancies there may be in the Catalogues,
arise from omissions in one of what is inserted in
one or both of the other two: and thus these dis-
crepancies are of service, as.showing that the Cata-
logues are, in some degree at least, independent of
each other.

Therefore, the Writer, whose works Eusebius and
St. Jerome are describing, is the same as the Person
represented in the Statue.

The Author whose Works Eusebius and St. Je-
rome are enumerating, is St. HiproLytus.

He then is the person represented in the Statue.

1. This conclusion is confirmed by other evidence.
The person represented in the Statue is a venerable

6 Euseb. vi. 22. 8S. Hieron. de Viris Illust. 61.

46 Another Name.

figure, sitting in a Cathedra,—as a Christian Teacher.
Hippolytus, it is well known, was a Bishop of the
Church’. The Statue was found on the spot de-
scribed by the Christian Poet, Prudentius *, as the site
where, after St. Hippolytus had suffered martyrdom
at Portus, a monument was erected to his memory.
The Cemetery where the remains of St. Hippolytus
were buried, was near the Church of Lorenzo, where
the Statue was discovered. In the life of Pope
Hadrian I.°, it is recorded that “he repaired the
Cemetery of St. Hippolytus, near the Church of
Lorenzo, which had long fallen into decay.” Hence,
it is evident that the person represented in the
Statue is the venerable Bishop of Portus, the Saint
and Martyr of the Roman Church in the third cen-
tury, St. Hippolytus.

” Euseb. and S. Jerome as before.
* Prudentius de martyrio Sancti Hippolyti, Peri Stephanén,
Hymn. xi. 152:

** Roma placet sanctos quee teneat cineres.
Haud procul extremo culta ad pomeria vallo—
Mersa latebrosis crypta patet foveis.”

In v. 220 the author describes a neighbouring temple, of which
the ruins are said by Baronius to have been extant in his time.
See Fabric. Hippol. i. p. xix. note.

° Pope from a.p. 772—795. Anastasii Liber de Vitis Pont.
in Hadrian. I, A church of St. Hippolytus is described by an
ancient writer on the ‘‘ Regiones Urbis,” apud Mabillon Analecta
Vetera, p. 365, as standing on the Via Tiburtina, near the
church of S. Laurence. See also the authorities in Ruggieri,
pp. 473, 474. 476.

Another Name. 47

Accordingly, when the Statue was removed to the
Vatican, it was there received as a Statue of St.
Hippolytus, and the following inscription (declaratory
of its purport and discovery, and of its restoration
by Pope Pius IV.) was engraved on its pedestal,

STATVA
S. HIPPOLYTI
PORTVENSIS EPISCOPI
QVI VIXIT ALEXANDRO
PIO. IMP.

EX VRBIS RVINIS EFFOSSA
A PIO. IlII MEDICEO
PONT. MAX.
RESTITVTA.

2. The Catalogue on this Statue of Hippolytus spe-
cifies (as we have said) a work “On the Universe.”

The Author of our Treatise on Heresy mentions
such a Work as written by himself.

Therefore, on this ground we infer that the writer
of our Treatise is St. Hippolytus.

3. Next, it may now be added, both Eusebius and
St. Jerome mention “a Treatise on Heresy,” as
written by Hippolytus’.

Hence it would seem to be very probable that the
Author of the newly-discovered Treatise is St. Hrp-
POLYTUS.

And, if this is the case, then it appears that the

' Euseb. vi. 22. apds amdcas tas aipéoes. S. Hieron. de Viris
Tllust. c. Ixi.: ‘‘ Adversus omnes Heereses.” The title of our
work is, diAocodovpeva, 7) Kata Tacdv aipécewy eAeyxos.

48 Another Name.

discovery of a mutilated Statue, near Rome, three
hundred years ago, will have served us as a clue for
ascertaining the Author of a Treatise disinterred
from a Monastery in Mount Athos in 1842 ; and will
have aided us in the attainment of certain important
results (as we shall see hereafter) consequent on that
fact.

Let us therefore proceed to consider whether the
opinion, now stated as probable, that the present
Treatise was written by St. Hippolytus, may be cor-
roborated by other proofs.

Various works are now extant, which are attri-
buted to St. Hippolytus, and they have been inserted
as such, in the edition of his writings published by
Fabricius. But, since their genuineness has been
doubted by some learned men, it will be better not
to draw any inferences from them, as if they were
undoubtedly his. Let us reserve what is to be said
on them to a later period in the enquiry, and let us
construct our argument on what is unquestioned and
unquestionable. .

4. Let us bear in mind what is the time and
place with which we are concerned in the present
enquiry.

The Author, whoever he may be, lived in the
Church of Rome, in the end of the second and begin-
ning of the third century. He does not write in the
language of Rome, but of Greece. And his work
proves him to have been a learned and eloquent man.
If what he narrates of himself be true, he had com-

Another Name. 49

posed various other works ; he was a copious writer.
And he held a high position in the Roman Church
for many years.

Few persons correspond to this description. Indeed
we might almost say that no one does—except St.
Hippolytus.

Our Treatise (as we have seen) divides itself into
two portions.

1. A view of the Philosophical Systems that had
prevailed in the Heathen World.

2. A Refutation of the Heresies that had arisen
in the Christian Church.

Hence, the twofold title, “ Pu1LosopHUMENA ; or
a REFUTATION of HERESIES.”

1. With regard to the first of these titles; it is
observable that St. Hippolytus is called by ancient
writers “a sacred Philosopher’, and it is said, that
he was eminent “ in Christian Phzlosophy.”

It would seem then that he had written some
Philosophical work, which entitled him to this appel-
lation. Such a work is the present, as its name
intimates. —

Let us now refer to the Second title, the “ Reru-
TATION of all HEREsIzEs.”

As we have already seen, Eusebius and St. Jerome

? Georg. Syncell. in Chronog, ad a.p. 215, as quoted in S.
Hippol. ed. Fabr., i. p.42. See also S. Jerome Epist, ad Magn.
70, et ad Lucin. 71, where he celebrates Hippolytus for his pro-
ficiency in Philosophy.

E

50 Another Name.

attest that a Work “ Against all Heresies” was
written by Hippolytus.

The same is affirmed by numerous other Authors
of antiquity *.

2. We are also informed, that St. Hippolytus *
spoke in strong terms of censure against Nicolas, one
of the VII. Deacons, as well as against the Nicolaitans
—an observable circumstance, because many of the
ancient Fathers, viz. Ignatius, Clement of Alexandria,
Eusebius, and Theodoret did indeed reprobate the
Nicolaitans and their Heresy, but exempted Nicolas
the Deacon from blame *.

Now, in a passage already ° cited from the Treatise
before us, we have seen that the Author censures
both Nicolas and the Nicolaitans; as Hippolytus is
said to have done.

3. We have also seen that the Author, in that
passage, as in many others of this Treatise, copies
St. Irenzeus.

Now, among the scholars of Irenzus, we are
informed, was Hippolytus’.

* Georgius Syncellus in Chronog. a.p. 215. Chronic. Paschal.
Alexandrin. p. 6. Nicephorus Callisti Hist. Eccl., iv. 31, ascribes
to Hippolytus, ovvrayya mpds mdcas tas aipéreis Bunhedorarov.
S. Epiphanius, Her. xxxi. c. 33, refers to Hippolytus as one of
his predecessors in refuting Heresy.

* Gobar. ap. Phot. Cod. 232, zofas troAnwes eiyev IrrdAvtos
mept NixoAdov tod évds tOv € dtakdvwv, Kal dru ioxupds adrod Kara-
ywookel. :

° Gobar. ap. Phot. Bibliothec., Cod. 232. ° See above, p. 39.

’ Phot. Cod. 121, Ma@yris Eipnvaiov ‘Ta7rdAvros.

Another Name. 51

The time in which our Author lived, the mode in
which he deals with the work of Irenzus, make it
probable that he was reared under his training. He
writes like a scholar of Irenzus.

Again, we saw in the passage, just noticed, from
our Treatise, a testimony to the genuineness and
Inspiration of the Apocalypse. He speaks concern-
ing the Apocalypse as a scholar of St. Irenzus
would speak *.

4. We have contrasted that testimony with the
mode in which Caius the Roman Presbyter treated

* One word may be said here concerning the date of the
Apocalypse. St. Ireneus, who had seen Polycarp, the scholar of
St. John, asserts (v. 30) that the Revelation was seen by St.
John at the end of the reign of Domitian, a.p. 96 (otd yap mpd
ToAXod xpdvov éEwpdOn, GAXU oXEddv ext THs Twerepas yeveds, Tpds TO
réde ris Aoperiavod dpxns). Yet M. Bunsen declares (ii. 141),
** At all events the book itself plainly says the contrary. The
horizon of the Vision is the latter half of the year 68;” i.e. St.
Irenzeus made a mistake of about 30 years concerning what he
says took place almost in his own age! In the same oracular
tone, M. Bunsen pronounces (i. 25), that “the Romans knew
better than any body, from their first regular Bishop, Clemens,
that the Epistle to the Hebrews was not St. Paul’s.” Why
Linus, to whom the Apostles St. Peter and St. Paul first com-
mitted that Church (Iren. iii. 3), is not to be regarded as a regular
Bishop, does not appear. (Compare Bp. Pearson, Dissert., ii. v.)
As to the Epistle to the Hebrews, St. Clement imitates it, and it
is probable that he and the Romans knew from St. Peter (2 Pet.
iii. 15), as well as from other sources, that the Epistle was St.
Paul’s. See the arguments of Bp. Pearson, Dissert. i, ¢. viii.
pp. 857—359.

E2

52 Another Name.

the same Book—the Book of Revelation. Caius,
we know, flourished in the Episcopate of Zephyrinus,
that is, he was contemporary with—perhaps a little
senior to—our Author; and not merely was con-
temporaneous with him, but resided at the same
place, that is, in or near Rome.

The Author of our Treatise received and revered
the Apocalypse.

Let us now turn to the Catalogue of the titles of
Works inscribed on the back of the Statue of St.
Hippolytus °. |

There we read the following :—“ A defence of the
Gospel according to St. John and of the Apoca-

1”

lypse’.
Hence we see, that whatever might be the dispo-

sition of his Roman contemporary Caius, Hippolytus
acknowledged the Apocalypse as a work of the
Evangelist St. John.

Nor is this all. It appears to be probable, that
St. Hippolytus wrote in defence of the Apocalypse,
—against Caius.

For in the Chaldee Catalogue of the Works of
Hippolytus’, is one, entitled, “Chapters of St. Hip-
polytus, against Caius.”

° This Catalogue may be seen in Gruter. Inscript. 140; Le
Moyne’s Varia Sacra, i. p. 496; S. Hippol. ed. Fabricii, i. p. 38;
Cave, Historia Eccl. ed. Basil, 1741, i. 104; Bunsen, “ Hippo-
lytus and his Age,” i. pp. 288, 289.

* Yzép tov kara ‘Iwavvyv EvayyeAiov kat “Aroxadvwews.

* By Hebed. Jesu. See S. Hippol. ed. Fabric., i, p. 224.

Another Name. 53

It is true that Fabricius and some other learned
men have conjectured that this is an erroneous tran-
script, and that the true reading is “against the
Caianites *,’—heretics of that name. For why, they
ask, should Hippolytus have written against his con-
temporary Caius, who refuted heresies ?

But why, we may reply, should we desert the
received reading? The fact is clear, that some per-
sons in the Western Church had questioned the au-
thority of the Apocalypse. Why otherwise should
Hippolytus defend it? If Caius, the Roman Presby-
ter, treated the Apocalypse as we have seen he did
(pp. 37, 38), and yet enjoyed the reputation he did in
the Church of Rome, it is probable, that many in the
Roman Church (misled it is probable by zeal against
Montanism) looked on the Apocalypse with suspi-
cion. What more reasonable, then, than that Hip-
polytus his contemporary, the scholar of [renzeus the
disciple of Polycarp the hearer of St. John the
beloved disciple of Christ, when writing a defence
(as we know he did) of the Apocalypse, should
address it to Caius, in order to warn him and others
of his error, and to endeavour to rescue them
from it ?

However this may be, certain it is, that the Au-
thor of our Treatise censured Nicolas, as well as the
Nicolaitans ; and that he had no doubts as to the
genuineness and inspiration of the Apocalypse.

* Fabric. Bibl. Greece. Harles., vii. p. 197, ed. Hippol., i,
p. 224.

54 Another Name.

Certain it also is, that in both these respects, as
in many others, he followed Irenzus. It is also
evident, that St. Hippolytus did the same; and that
he was a Scholar of Irenzeus.

Hence, then, we recognize some further confirma-
tions of the previous probability that our Author
is St. Hippolytus.

Lastly, let us consider, by way of recapitulation,
the personal history of the writer of this Treatise.

.. He writes, and writes eloquently, in Greek, and
yet he lived in the Western Church. Besides this
Treatise against all Heresy, he wrote a Work “On
the Universe.” He resided at Rome, or near it,
under three successive Bishops at least, that is, in
the Episcopate of Zephyrinus, of Callistus, and of
his successor, Urbanus, perhaps longer*. He was a
Bishop, and speaks of his obligation as such to refute
heresy, and to maintain the truth®. He exercised
Church discipline, in resisting false doctrine, and in
separating open and obstinate offenders from Com-
munion with the Church *®. He describes’, with the
graphic liveliness of one who had been a spectator,
or had heard a description of those who were eye-
witnesses of it, a remarkable scene which took place
at Portus, the harbour of Rome.

* Book ix. passim. ° Book i. p. 3.

* See p. 290, where the Author uses the plural we, speaking of
himself. See the Rev. T. K. Arnold’s Theol. Critic, vol. ii. p.
597. So p. 334, 78, nov BiBrw. 7 PL 286:

Another Name. 55

All these and other particulars which might be
noticed, correspond with what we know of Hippo-
lytus. His name is not of Latin origin, but Greek.
Being a scholar of Irenzus, he was probably of
Eastern extraction. And all Antiquity witnesses
that he wrote in Greek. He composed a “ Refutation
of Heresy,” and a “Treatise on the Universe.” He
lived under Zephyrinus, Callistus, and his successor,
probably later. He was, also, a Bishop. <As has
been proved in the learned Work of Ruggieri, men-
tioned at the commencement of this enquiry, his
Episcopal See was Porrus, the harbour of Rome.
He was, therefore, a Suffragan Bishop*® of the Roman

® M. Bunsen (pp. 12. 207. 214) asserts that St. Hippolytus
was a member of the Roman Presbytery, by virtue of the office
he held as Bishop of Portus. But it does not appear that in
ancient. times the Suburbicarian Bishops of Rome had (as such)
parochial cures in the city of Rome. Nor does there seem to be
any analogy, as M. Bunsen supposes, between the case of St.
Hippolytus and that of the Cardinal Priests, who now derive titles
from Churches in Rome. The present successor of St. Hippo-
lytus, the Bishop of Porto, is not a Cardinal Priest, but is one of
the Six Cardinal Bishops. M. Bunsen (p. 316) affirms also
that Hippolytus was Bishop of the Nations, ‘‘ For (says M. Bun-
sen) that this title is mentioned (by Photius) as given to Caius
the Presbyter, is, as we have seen, only a consequence of his
(Photius) having taken Caius to be the Author of the Treatise
about ‘the Cause of the Universe.’”” Strange to say, in the sen-
tence immediately preceding that to which M. Bunsen refers,
Photius implies that he himself did not know who wrote that
Treatise, oiww por yéyovey evdnAov. (Phot. Cod. 48.) ‘ What
Photius knew (continues M. Bunsen) was that this author was

56 Another Name.

Church. Hence, he is often called by ancient
writers, a Roman Bishop, and even (in the language
of those days) a Bishop of Rome’. He is comme-
morated as such in the Roman Martyrologies. As
such he was honoured by a Statue in ancient times.
As such he is venerated in the Roman Breviary ", and
has been received into the Vatican, sitting in his
marble Chair. He is there installed in episcopal
dignity,—as a Teacher of the Western Church.

A Treatise, therefore, like the present, coming
from St. Hippolytus, and recovered almost miracu-
lously in the middle of the nineteenth century, is
entitled to respectful attention, especially from the
Western Church. And it may reasonably be ex-
pected, that it will not fail to receive it.

made Bishop of the Gentiles. Consequently this was a title given
to Hippolytus.” |
Is this Church-History ?
° See above, cap. i. pp. 9, 10. 0 Aug. 22,

CHAPTER VI.

OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED.—PHOTIUS AND OTHERS,

A CONSIDERABLE amount of evidence may be ad-
duced to authorize the ascription of a Work to a
particular writer, and such evidence may be sufficient
to produce conviction, when considered by itself; and
yet, when the question is subjected to further exa-
mination, and arguments are adduced on the other
side, that conviction may be weakened, and the mind
may waver concerning the soundness of its former
persuasion.

We have been engaged in considering the
question,—

To whom is the newly-discovered Treatise on
Heresy to be assigned ?

We have been led to observe, that the Candidates
for its authorship cannot be numerous. We have
examined the pretensions of two Competitors—
Origen, and Caius of Rome, who appeared at first
to have strong claims on our attention. We have
seen that the Work could not be adjudged to either
of them.

58 Olyections considered.—

Another name was then adduced,—that of Sr.
Hrprotytus. And there seemed to be sufficient
reason for awarding this Volume to him.

This part of our task has been performed with
comparative ease. Others have smoothed the way.
More than a year ago, a learned English Theolo-
gian', speaking of this newly-discovered Treatise,
assigned it to St. Hippolytus; and, since that time,
a Work has been published, which adduces some
cogent arguments in favour of the same opinion, by
a writer long known to the world—the Chevalier
Bunsen ’.

* Archn. Churton, page xxvii. of the Preface to his Edition of
Bp. Pearson’s Vindiciz Ignatianee, where he calls this Treatise
‘Opus nuper felicibus Academiz Oxoniensis auspiciis publica
luce donatum, Christiane Antiquitatis cultoribus acceptissimum,
Origenis, ut titulus preefert, sive ut mihi cum Viris compluribus
bene doctis probabilius videtur, S. Hippolyti.” This preface is
dated vii. Kal. Feb. mpccctit.

? In the First Volume of “‘ Hierotytus and his Ace,” by
C. C.J. Bunsrn, D.C.L., Four Volumes, Lond. 1852. It appears
that this Volume was written in June and July, 1851. It is much
to be regretted that M. Bunsen’s work should be often marred by
great confidence of assertion on very slender grounds, and some- .
times on none at all. And some of those assertions concern
the most vital articles of Christian faith and practice, as well as
important questions of Church History. And these asseverations
are accompanied with contemptuous insinuations against the lite-
rary honesty of others—especially of the dead*. It is with un-
feigned reluctance that the writer of these lines expresses himself

* E.g.p. 316: “It is a fable, whether invented or picked up somewhere
by Cave, that Hippolytus was Clemens’ disciple.” Again, p. 263, concerning
Bp. Bull: “ Bull often makes assertions also which have no foundation.”

Photius and others. 59

But “ Audi alteram partem” is the counsel which
is suggested by experience in questions of this de-
scription. We cannot justly feel satisfied with any
conclusion, till we hear what may be adduced against
it. And it is not to be denied, that, in the present
case, there is much to be said which might seem at
first to be of sufficient weight to constrain us to sus-
pend our judgment, if not to incline it in another
direction.

Let us, then, address ourselves to the considera-
tion of this other evidence.

1. The learned Patriarch of Constantinople, Pho-
tius, had in his Library a Work ascribed to Sr. Hip-
POLYTUS: and it was a Work “ Acainst Heresy.”

In his bibliographical Journal, composed in As-
syria, Photius describes it thus °.

“ A biblidarion” (a diminutive of little book) “of
Hippolytus—was read to me‘. Hippolytus was a

thus. Buta sense of obligation compels him to say, and he has
considered it a duty to adduce reasons in the course of this
volume for his conclusion, that his exhortation to the reader of
M. Bunsen’s Volumes must be, Nade, xai péuvac’ amurreiv.

$ Phot. Cod. 121. dveyvicOn BiBAdprov ‘Txrodvrov' Mabyrijs
88 Eipyvatov 6 ‘ImmdAvtos' jv 88 76 otvraypa Kara aipécewy AP’.
dpxiv movotpevov AooWeavors kai péxpt Noyrod xai Nonriavov dia-
AapPBdvov (sic Bekker, pro vulg. SuAapBavdpevov) ravras dé dy-
ow edéyxots VroBAnOijvat Spirodtvros Eipyvaiov, dv Kail civoww 6
‘InmdAvros rovovpevos T60€ 7d BiBdiov dyoiv cvvreraxévat. ... A€yer
8: dAAa re Twa Tis axpiBelas Aeurdpeva, Kai dre 4 pds “EBpaiovs
ériatoAi) ovk éotw Tov ‘ArogrdAov IHavAov.

* It is well known to have been a common practice of students

60 Objections considered.—

Scholar of Ireneus. This Book is a ‘ TREATISE
against THirTy-rwo HeEreEsiEs; it begins with the
Dositheans, and goes down to Noetus and the Noe-
tians: and the Author says, that he composed it as
a synopsis of Lectures’ delivered vivd voce by Ire-
nus, in refutation of these heresies. There are some
things deficient in accuracy in this book,—one is the
assertion, that the Epistle to the Hebrews is not by
the Apostle St. Paul *.”

Here, then, we are met by a difficulty.

Photius had a Work before him—a Work on
Heresy—a Work written by St. Hippolytus. He
proceeds to describe it. How does it correspond
with the Treatise before us? His Volume is a little
book—a single PuBrAddpiov ; ours is a large one: it
consists of ten Ai8ria. His began with the Dosi-
theans, and ended with the Noetians; ours begins
its catalogue of heresies with the Naassenes, and

in ancient times rather to hear books read to them by slaves called
anagnoste, than to read them with their own eyes. The pathetic
lament of Cicero for the death of his own anagnostes will occur to
the reader. Hence the expression of Photius.

* These Lectures were probably prior to the V. Books,—or
rather portions of V. Books,—of Irenzeus against Heresies, now
extant, which were published at intervals a.p. 180—185, accord-
ing to Bp. Pearson, Diss. Post. ii. xiv. p. 527. Perhaps the date
should be carried lower: the third book was written under Eleu-
therus (iii. 3), whose Episcopate is extended by some to A.D.
192. Jaffé, p. 4.

: © Cp. Euseb., vi. 20, where he says that Caius also did not
acknowledge the Epistle to be by St. Paul, and even yet (adds
Eusebius) some at Rome do not receive it as St. Paul’s.

Photius and others. 61

ends with the Elchasaites. His professed to be a
compendium of ora/ discourses by Irenzus’; ours
makes no such announcement. In the Treatise
which Photius read, Hippolytus said that the Epistle
to the Hebrews was not written by St. Paul. In
the books which remain of our Treatise, there is no
such assertion *.

2. Can, therefore, our Treatise be the same Work
as that read by Photius?

Attempts have been made to prove them identical’.

7 It could not have been a compendium from the written
Treatise of Irenzeus against Heresy, in V. books; for no mention
is made there of the Dositheans or Noetians.

®* These difficulties have been well stated by a learned writer,
the Rev. Robert Scott, in an able Article in the Rev. T. K. Ar-
nold’s Theol, Critic, vol. ii. p. 524.

® M. Bunsen says, p. 16: ‘ The description (given by Pho-
tius) tallies so exactly with the book before us, that it cannot
have been given of any other.” Again, p. 25: “ The rest of the
account given by Photius is positive and accurate enough to prove
that we have the work he speaks of before us.” And again,
p- 26: ‘* Photius evidently found these Judaic sects, as we do, at
the head of his Treatise, but expresses himself inaccurately”
(that is, Photius is to be taxed with carelessness, because M. Bunsen
is confident). He then proceeds thus: “ Jnstead of calling them
Ophites (says M. Bunsen), Photius designates them as Dositheans,”
Again, p. 26: “The last of the heresies treated by Hippolytus,
in the work read by Photius, was that of the Noetians; and so in
fact it is in our book.” Again, pp. 120, 121: “ Looking back to
the points I undertook to prove, I believe I have established them
pretty satisfactorily.” ‘‘ Our work begins in fact, as Photius says,
so too does it end.”

It was requisite to notice these assertions of M. Bunsen, for the

62 Olyections considered.—

And it has been asserted, without any hesitation,
that they are one and the same Work. But, on
consideration of the evidence, few persons, it is
probable, will coneur in that opinion. No Pro-
erustean process of pressure can make a Treatise
in ten biblia to coincide with the single bzblidarion
described by Photius.

3. Besides,—looking at the contents of our Trea-
tise, we find a copious account of proceedings which
took place in the Church of Rome in our Author’s
lifetime, and in which he had an active share. Con-
sidering the nature of those proceedings, any one who
remembers the relation of Photius, Patriarch of Con-
stantinople, to the Bishop of Rome and the Roman
See, and who recollects his long and vigorous
struggle against what he regarded as its usurpations,
will feel a strong persuasion, that if Photius had
ever had before him the narrative contained in this
Treatise, he would not have failed to notice it in his
account of the Work, and would have dwelt upon
the events there recorded, in his controversies with
the Roman See.

4. Once more: We have seen that the Author
of our Treatise claims the Work, “ On the Universe,”
as his own'. But Photius (as we have also seen ’”)

purpose of putting the reader on his guard, and of showing that
affirmations from the same quarter on more important matters
cannot be received without caution, although they may be made
without hesitation,

' -P. 334. * Above, p. 33; p. 55, note.

Photius and others. 63

did not know who wrote that Work on the Uni-
verse. He says that it has been ascribed to Justin
Martyr, Caius, and others ;—but has no suspicion
that it was written by Hippolytus. Hence, again,
it is clear, that our Treatise is not the Little Book
on Heresy by Hippolytus, which Photius saw and
describes.

5. Here, let us candidly avow, is an embarrass-
ment: it must not be disguised or extenuated. Let
us not close our eyes to it. Rather let us meet it,
in hope, that, if our former conclusion was right, this,
which is now a difficulty, may eventually become an
ally. St. Hippolytus, it is confessed by all, wrote
a Treatise on Heresy. Photius read a Work on
Heresy, written by Hippolytus. Our Treatise is a
Treatise on Heresy, and is different from the Book
read by Photius. And it is anonymous.

Has not, therefore, the Little Book read by Pho-
tius the fairer claim of the two to be regarded as the
Work on Heresy written by Hippolytus, and men-
tioned by Eusebius and Jerome and others, and
received by the world as such ?

Again: if we ascend upward from the times of
Photius to an earlier period, we find additional evi-
dence of the existence of a Work on Heresy written
by Hippolytus—and a Work differing from the
Treatise before us.

6. For example: Gelasius*, Bishop of Rome at

* Gelas. ap. Bibl. Patrum Max, Lugd., viii. p. 704. Fabric.
Hippol., p. 225.

64 Objections considered.—

the close of the fifth century (a. p. 492—496), in his
Treatise “On the two Natures of Christ,” refers to a
Work by St. Hippolytus on Heresy, and cites a pas-
sage from it. He introduces his quotation thus *:
“From Hippolytus, Bishop and Martyr, of the Me-
tropolis of the Arabians, in his Memoria Heeresium.”
He then recites (not in the original Greek, but in
Latin) an extract ; a very beautiful passage, in which
Hippolytus collects from Holy Scripture some of
the proofs, displayed by our Blessed Lord upon
earth, of His Humanity, and also of His Divi-
nity.

The passage which Gelasius cites does not appear
in our Treatise.

Here, however, it may be observed, that there is
good reason for doubting, whether the work above
mentioned, ascribed to Gelasius, Bishop of Rome, is
really his. Cardinal Baronius’ states some reasons
for questioning its genuineness. And, in addition to
the arguments used to that effect by the learned
Cardinal, it may. be observed, that it is hardly pos-
sible that Gelasius Bishop of Rome should not have
known that St. Hippolytus was Bishop of Portus, or
at least should have imagined that he was Bishop of

* Hippolyti, Episcopi et Martyris, Arabum Metropolis, in Me-
moria Heresum. Hippolytus could hardly have been Bishop of
Bozra, for that See appears to have been filled by Beryllus to the
year 244. See Ruggieri, pp. 354, 355.

* Ad a.p. 496. See also Ruggieri ap. Lumper. Hist. Eccl.,
viii. 539.

Photius and others. 65

the metropolis of Arabia,—that is, of Bosra®. It is
true that St. Jerome, who was Secretary to Pope
Damasus, did not know the name of the See of
Hippolytus’. But of this more hereafter. And
ignorance is one thing; error is another. St.
Jerome, born in the West, but living in the East,
might not know the name of a Bishop who had
flourished in the West. But it is hardly possible
that Gelasius, a Bishop of Rome, should not have
known that St. Hippolytus had been a Suffragan
of his own See; or, at least, that he should have
imagined that Hippolytus, Bishop of Portus, near
Rome, was Bishop of Bosra in Arabia. '

The fact seems to be, as indeed has been already
suggested by others®, that this error in the designation
of Hippolytus was derived from the erroneous Latin
version, by Ruffinus, of a passage in the Ecclesiastical
History of Eusebius, where speaking of the learned
ecclesiastical writers flourishing at a particular period,
he says: “ Of these, Beryllus left Epistles, and
various choice extracts® from other writings. He
was Bishop of the Arabians in Bosra. And like-
wise Hippolytus,—who was president of some other
Church '.”

° See Bingham, ix. ch. 1, and Carolus a S. Paulo Geographia
Sacra, p. 295, ed. 1703, where Bosra is called the Metropolis of
Arabia in Episcopal subscriptions.

” §. Hieron, Script. Eccl., 61. Hippolytus cujusdam Ecclesie
Episcopus ; nomen quippe urbis scire non potui.

S Cotelerius, Monument. Eccl. Greece. ii. 639. Paris, 1681.

® diroxaXéas.

* "Exioxoros 8 otros qv tév Kata Bootpay ’ApdBwv, doavrws de

F

66 Objections considered.—

But whether this extract was really made by
Gelasius, Bishop of Rome, or no, (which is not of
much moment to the question before us,) we must
now revert to the fact, that we look in vain for the
passage, in our Treatise on Heresy.

On the other hand, it may be remarked, that the
same passage exists in the original Greek, not in the
“Treatise of Hippolytus against Noetus,” as has been
affirmed ”, but in his Exposition of the Second Psalm,
and is so cited by Theodoret °.

We may offer one more remark on this quotation,
by Gelasius, before we close this Chapter; but in the
mean time perhaps it may be affirmed that not much
can be inferred from the words of Gelasius, either
for or against the genuineness of our Treatise.

7. We ascend to an earlier period than Gelasius,
and enter the fourth century.

A Bishop of Alexandria, Peter, who lived early in
that century, refers to St. Hippolytus, whom he calls
“a witness of Godliness,” (probably alluding to his
Kat ‘ImmdAvros, érépus tov Kal aiTos mpoertas éxkAnoias, which is
thus rendered by Ruffinus, “ Erat inter czeteros et Beryllus scrip-
tor preecipuus, qui et ipse diversa opuscula dereliquit. Episcopus
hic fuit apud Bostram Arabie urbem maximam, erat nihilominus
et Hippolytus qui et ipse aliquanta scripta dereliquit Episcopus.”
The Latin words of Gelasius, ‘‘ Episcopus Arabum Metropolis,”
seem to be derived from this version by Ruffinus.

? M. Bunsen says, i. p. 206, ‘‘ The passage (quoted by Gela-
sius) exists in the special Treatise against Noetus.”” A passage
like it is found in that Homily, chap. xviii. vol. ii. p. 19, ed.
Fabric., and bears marks of being from the same author.

* Theodoret, Dial. dovyxvtos. Vol. iv. Pars i. p. 132, Hale,
1772.

Photius and others. 67

Martyrdom,) and Bishop of Portus, near Rome‘.
He then proceeds to adduce a citation from a Work °
of “St. Hippolytus, Against all Heresies.” The
quotation refers to the error of the Quartodecimans
(that is, of those who kept Easter as the Jews did
the Passover, on the xivth day of the Moon), and
Peter states that he quotes verbally ° from that Work
of Hippolytus.

Let us now refer to our own Treatise. We there
find that the Author speaks of the Quartodecimans ’,
and that what he there says, bears some resemblance
to the quotation of the Alexandrine Bishop, but is
_ not identical with it *.

* Chronicon Paschale sive Alexandrinum, p. 6. See S. Hippol.
Fabric. i. p. 224; cf. ibid. p. 43.

° otvraypa. ° emi A€sews. ’ P. 274, 85.

* M. Bunsen says (p. 15), the passage quoted by Peter “ must
have existed in our work,” 7. ¢. in the Philosophumena; and he
pronounces the text of the Philosophumena to be defective, be-
cause it does not contain the passage quoted by Peter, but only
presents ‘‘an abstract of it carelessly made.” (p. 110.) An
Author who writes thus would seem to imagine himself to be like
Tiresias among the Shades, who is said

Olos rerviioOanr rot dé exalt diooovow.
The reader may compare the two passages :—

Quotation from Hippolytus Philosophumena, or Refutation
against Heresy in Paschal of Heresies, pp. 274-5.
Chronicle, p. 6.
bpO pev (read dpOpev) ore he- €repol twes PtiAdvetKkot Tv

/ me / 4 , / 7 ‘
ANoverkias TO epyovy A€yee yap dow. . avvieravover Seiy 7d
’ ToT Ee, . ; ‘ s a ,
ovtrws, “ erointey TO macxa 6 Tdoxa TH TeToaperKadeKdTy

xpiotos Tore, TH Hepa Kal (Hj?) Tod pyvds prddooev Kata Ti
F.2

68 Objections considered.—

Hence then it is manifest, first, that the Bishop
of Alexandria had some work of Hippolytus on
Heresy in his possession; and, secondly, it is evident
that our Treatise was not that work.

To these considerations must be added another;
namely, that the work to which these Authors refer,—
namely, Photius, Gelasius, and Peter of Alexandria,—
as written by Hippolytus, appears to have dorne his
name; and to have been generally received as his.
But our Treatise has not the name of Hippolytus
prefixed to it.

8. Jf then the alternative lay between the Book
seen and quoted by Photius and others on the one
side, and our Treatise on the other, it would seem
requisite to ask for more time to consider, before
we ventured to arbitrate between the two, and to
reject the former work, and to receive the latter, as
the Treatise against Heresy written by Hippolytus,
and recognized by Antiquity as such.

A , 8 ‘ 3 es
TOU VOPOVU taTaynVv €V 4 av

nPepa. euaréon. .

érabev, Sw det kape Set Ov Tpdrov

e , > / 9 a3 3 ,
oO Kvuptos ETOLYOEV, OVTWS TOLELY. + OV TpodEeyoVv-

remAdvyrat Oe, p2 yryvorkwv Ort
a a 2o\ *% ¢£ i
TO Kaipo (@?) éracxev* 6 xpe
\ > » \ \ /
OTOS OVK Eharyev TO KATA VOMOV
maoxa. Otros (Airds?) yap Hv
TO TATXGA TO THOKEKNPVY MLE
\ , nm e
voV, Kal TeeLovpEvov TH Wpl-

opevy jy<pe.

* Cf. S. Hippol. (fragm. lib. i. de Paschate) ibid. p. 6.

tes 6 Tt lovdaious evopoberetro,
Tots péAAovot TO GANOLVOV T4-
axa dvoipeiy (Christum) 76 ¢is
+ lol \ / ,

20vn xwpjncay, kat ticte. voovpe-

vov ov ypdppare viv THpOvpevor.

7) Tdoxa ovK

eparye, GAN’ erable (sc. xpiords). Fabr. Hippol. p. 43.

Photius and others. 69

9. But let us now pass on to observe, that this is
not the case.

It may perhaps be allowed to be probable, that St.
Hippolytus wrote ¢wo works against Heresy.

It is not uncommon for Authors to write a brief
Essay on a subject, and then, subsequently, to ex-
pand it into a larger Treatise.

Cicero amplified, in his De Oratore, what he had
before treated in his earlier works on Rhetoric’.
St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans is an expansion
of that to the Galatians. Tertullian goes over some
of the same ground in his “ad Nationes” that he
had previously traversed in his “ Apologeticus.” Ori-
gen composed three different editions of Scriptural
Expositions’. St. Augustine composed twelve books,
“de Genesi ad literam,” as a development of what
he had before previously written in one book *.

Let us remember, also, the nature of the subject ;
Heresy. Heresy is not stationary; but is ever receiv-
ing new accessions, and showing itself in new forms.
New refutations are requisite, as new errors arise. It
is, therefore, not unlikely, that, if new heresies had
arisen in his later years, and if the old ones were not

* De Oratore 1, 2. Vis enim, ut mihi sepe dixisti, quoniam
quz pueris aut adolescentulis nobis ex commentariolis nostris
inchoata et rudia exciderunt vix hic etate digna, aliquid iisdem
de rebus politius a nobis perfectiusque proferri.

? Sedulius, in przefat. operis Paschal., “‘ Cognoscant Origenem
tribus editionibus prope cuncta que disseruit aptavisse.” See
Vales in Euseb. vi. 38.

* S. Aug. Retractationes, i. 18.

70 Objections considered. —

extinct, Hippolytus would have written in continua-
tion and expansion of what he had formerly pub-
lished concerning Heresy.

10. In the present case, however, we need not rest
on probabilities. We have good reason for believing,
that St. Hippolytus wrote two Treatises against
Heresy: first, a Compendium; then, afterwards,
a longer Treatise. In speaking thus, we think that
we have the authority of St. Hippolytus himself *.

In the Introduction to the newly-discovered
Treatise, the Author thus writes:—*“ No fable of
those who are famous among heathens is to be re-
jected. Their incoherent dogmas are rather to be
regarded as credible, on account of the greater in-
fatuation of heretics, who have been supposed by
many to worship God, because they hide and dis-
guise their ineffable mysteries. Whose dogmas we
expounded, some time ago*, with brevity, not exhi-
biting them in detail, but refuting them rather in rude

* I am indebted to the learned Author of the Papers in the
Ecclesiastic, Nos. LXVI., LXVII., LXXXIV., for the first sug-
gestion of this solution. See No. LXXXIV. p. 399. The same
explanation has been also given by Duncker, as mentioned by
Jacobi, de Basilidis Sententiis, Berlin, 1852. Let me add as a
conjecture, that as the smaller and earlier work of Hippolytus, his
B.BASdpov against Heresy was due to the oral discourses or Lec-
tures of his master Irenzeus, so the idea of this later and larger
Treatise was suggested by the Work of Irenzeus against Heresy,
which we now possess, and that the “ biblidarion” bore very much
the same relation to the Lectures, that the ‘‘ Philosophumena”’ does
to the "EAeyxos of Irenzeus.

* adda.

Photius and others. 71

generality ; not thinking it would ° be requisite to drag
their secrets to the light,—in order that when we had
shown their tenets as it were darkly, they being
filled with shame lest we should speak out their
mysteries plainly, and show them to be infidels,
might in some degree relinquish their irrational
principles and godless designs. But since I perceive
that they have no feeling of regard for our moderation,
and that they do not consider that God, Who is blas-
phemed by them, is long-suffering, in order that
either through compunction they may repent, or if
obstinate they may be justly punished, J am con-
strained to come forward, and to disclose their
secret mysteries, which they deliver with great con-
fidence to those who are initiated by them. And
though the subject compels us to launch forth on a
wide sea of demonstration, I do not deem it fit to
be silent, but will exhibit in detail the dogmas of them
all, And though our argument will be long, yet it
seems right not to flag. For we shall bequeathe to
posterity a no slight boon, so that they may no
longer be deceived, when all behold manifestly the
secret orgies of heretics, which they deliver only to
their neophytes.”

11. Let us remember, also, that, as we learn from
Photius, the biblidarion of Hippolytus terminated
with Noetus and the Noetians.

* py av agvov, Codices depravaté, says M. Miller, who has sub-
stituted dvagiov, which, however, does not seem necessary, and
gives a doubtful sense.

72 Olyections considered.—

Now it appears from our Treatise, that after Noe-
tus, another Heresy broke forth, derived in part from
that of Noetus,—namely, the Caxuistran Heresy ;
and that it made great havock in the Roman Church,
and that our Author had the principal share in
checking its progress. Accordingly, in the Ninth
Book, he begins as it were afresh, and devotes a
great part of that Book to the Callistian Heresy, and
to another still later Heresy, which he describes as
owing its progress at Rome to the Callistian, viz..—
the Heresy of the Elchasaites. |

We see, then, that our Author had written an
earlier work on Heresy; and, in the History of the
Callistian and Elchasaite Heresies subsequent to the
Noetian, we perceive another very good reason why
he should have written a Second Treatise on Heresy,
if the former Work which he had written had ended
with Noetus.

12. Thus, then, we find it stated as a fact by our
Author in the newly-discovered Treatise,—

1. That he had already, some time since (ada),
written a book against Heresy ;

2. That the former Work was a compendious
one; and

3. He states some reasons for writing another
Treatise more in detail.

13. We are, therefore, now led to enquire, whether
we can find an earlier and shorter Work on Heresy
which we may assign to our Author.

Now, supposing our Author to be St. Hippolytus

Photius and others. 73

—(which we have good reason to do, from our Au-
thor’s age and position in the Western Church, and
from his authorship of a “ Work on the Universe,”
quoted in this Treatise as written by our Author,
and known from the list on the Statue to be written
by Hippolytus)—we find that a shorter work on
Heresy is ascribed to him, corresponding in character
to that of which we are now in search.

Such a Work, we say, was written by Hippolytus’ ;
it was inscribed with his name, and was read by
Photius. It was a short Work—for it is called d7d/i-
darion. It was probably not in several successive
Books, like our Treatise, but contained in a single
Book, like’ that annexed to the Prescriptiones of
Tertullian. And it is not unlikely that the Heresies
were numbered in it consecutively, and that each was
despatched in a few paragraphs respectively, as is the
case in the work on Heresy by Philastrius*® (circ.
A.D. 850). Otherwise, we can hardly see why Pho-
tius should call it “ A Little Book against thirty-two
heresies.” For would he have taken the pains to
count them? Would he have described it as such?
It seems also to have been written a considerable
time before our work, for it was not formed from

® It may be observed here, that Trithemius de Script. Eccles.,
No. XXXVI., a.p. 1494, in his catalogue of the works of Hip-
polytus, enumerates, ‘‘ Contra Omnes Heereses, lib. iii.”

7 Which, in a MS. of Semler, is entitled ‘‘ Adversus omnes

Heereses.”’
* Bibl. Pat. Max. v. p. 701.

74 Objections considered.—

the Work of Ireneus against Heresy, but from his
lectures, and was published as a compendium of them.
The work of Irenzeus was finished about a.p. 190,
and he died about a.p. 202; whereas our Author
refers to facts that did not take place till about
A.pv. 220. It also ended with the Noetians, and
does not appear to have said any thing of the Cal-
listians, and certainly did not go on (as ours does)
to describe the Heresy of Hlchasai.

14. Hence, therefore, the description by Photius
of another work on Heresy by Hippolytus, different
from our Treatise, so far from invalidating the evi-
dence already adduced to show that our Treatise
was written by Hippolytus, comes in as an additional
proof that the newly-discovered Treatise is from him.

Our Author wrote two works on Heresy. The
present Work is described by him as the latter and
longer work of the two. If then our Author is Hip-
polytus, we may expect to find another earlier and
shorter work than the present written by Hippo-
lytus. We do-find such a work. Therefore a
new argument thence arises—that our Author is
Hippolytus.

15. Here, also, the other difficulties vanish which
were noticed in this chapter.

Gelasius—or whoever is the Author of the Trea-
tise above mentioned as bearing his name—certainly
did not quote from our Treatise: we have seen good
reason for thinking that he did not quote from a
Treatise on Heresy by Hippolytus, but from another -

Photius and others. 75

work of his. It may be, however, that the passage
he cites was in the shorter Treatise seen by Photius,
as well as in the Exposition of the Psalms by Hip-
polytus. And the term by which he describes the
work from which he quotes, viz., “ Memoria Heere-
sium,” would be very applicable to a brief Notice of
Heresies, such as that which Photius describes.

The same may be said of the passage cited by
Peter of Alexandria. It proves that there was a
work on Heresy by Hippolytus, different from ours.
His extract is from that work. It differs from what
is said on the Quartodecimans in our Treatise, and
yet in some degree resemb/es it in argument and lan-
guage. It looks as if it came from the same pen as
that which wrote our Treatise, though it is itself not
the same as what is written there on the same sub-
ject. The author of our Treatise had written ano-
ther Treatise on Heresy. Therefore this quotation
by Peter, Bishop of Alexandria, comes in also as an
additional proof that our Treatise was written by
Hippolytus.

We may find perhaps, hereafter, that the “ Little
Book” of Hippolytus, seen and described by Photius,
may prove of still more service to us yet. But let us
pause here for the present.

CHAPTER VII.

OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED.

NARRATIVE CONCERNING THE CHURCH OF ROME.

A CONSIDERABLE portion of our Author’s Ninth Book
is occupied with a narrative of what he himself saw
and did at Rome in the beginning of the third cen-
tury. This part of his work, in the writer's own
words, accompanied with an English translation, will
be found in the second portion of the present volume,
and the reader’s attention is now requested to that
narrative.

On reference to it, he will see that the author
begins with describing a particular heresy, the Nor-
TIAN. This consisted mainly in a denial of the dis-
tinct Personality of God the Father and God the
Son, and in an assertion, that the words Father and
Son were merely different appellations assigned to
the same Divine Being accordingly as He existed in
different relations, or manifested Himself in different
modes'. Hence, its promoters were called Patripas-

* See Philosoph. pp. 284, 285.

Narrative concerning the Church of Rome. 77

sians ; in other words, they were charged with affirm-
ing that it was the Mather Who suffered in fact,
although He whose Passion is described in Holy
Scripture is called the Son. Hence, also, they were
regarded as originators of the heresy which afterwards
became more notorious under the name of Sabel-
lianism, from its principal promoter SaBELLIUs, who
followed in the track of Noetus ’.

Our Author traces the course of Noetianism from
Smyrna to Rome. It is said by him to have made
its appearance in the Italian capital when Zephyri-
nus was Bishop of the Church there. It was not
altogether a new dogma at Rome, for, according to
Tertullian, a heresy had been there propagated by
Praxeas, who afterwards passed over into Africa,
which resembled that of Noetus. Perhaps it was re-
ceived at Rome with less suspicion *, because Praxeas

? Sabelliani (says S. Aug. de Heres, XLI.) a Noeto defluxisse
dicuntur, nam et discipulum ejus quidam perhibent fuisse Sa-
bellium.

S. Augustine says that in his days the name of Noetians was
almost obsolete (de Heres. XLI.). Noetiani difficile ab aliquo
sciuntur, Sabelliani autem sunt in ore multorum. Nam et Praxe-
anos eos a Praxed quidam vocant, et Hermogeniani vocari ab
‘ Hermogene potuerunt: qui Praxeas et Hermogenes eadam sen-
tientes in Africd fuisse dicuntur. Nec tamen iste plures sectz
sunt, sed ejusdem sectz plura nomina...; and of the Sabellians
he says, Patripassiani quam Sabelliani pluries nuncupantur. _

> Tertullian, adv. Praxeam I., Praxeas Episcopum Romanum
agnoscentem jam prophetias Montani. . . coégit literas pacis re-
vocare. Ita duo negotia diaboli Praxeas Rome procuravit :

78 Narrative concerning

had made himself conspicuous by the part he took
against the Montanist heresy, which was obnoxious
to the Roman Church, and which was combated by
the Roman presbyter Caius, in the time of Zephy-
rinus *.

However this may be, our Author relates °, that
the Noetian heresy obtained great success at Rome.
Its principal teacher, Cleomenes, organized a congre-
gation there, and attracted numerous disciples. At
length, partly by persuasion, partly by corruption, he
won over the Bishop of Rome, Zephyrinus, whom
our Author represents as covetous and illiterate ; and
so he obtained Episcopal sanction for the heresy of
Noetus.

The principal agent in this unhappy work of apos-
tasy, according to our Author's relation, was Cal-
listus. He represents Callistus as an ambitious per-
son, aspiring to the Episcopal chair at Rome. He
exhibits him as the confidential counsellor of Zephy-
rinus, and as exercising a dominant influence over
his mind. In a word, he intimates that Zephyrinus
was Bishop only in name, while, in fact, Callistus
administered the affairs of the Roman Church.

Our Author introduces an episode concerning the
early career of Callistus; which the reader may

prophetiam expulit et heresim intulit. Paracletum fugavit et
Patrem crucifixit.

Praxeas and Noetus are mentioned as distinct persons by Phi-
lastrius de Heresibus LIII., LIV.
_ * See above, p. 29. * See his narative below, Pt. II.

the Church of Rome. 79

see, in the Author’s words, in the latter part of this
volume °.

During the Episcopate of Zephyrinus, according
to our Author's recital, there were two parties in the
Roman Church. One the orthodox, the other con-
sisting of those who inclined to the opinions of Sa-
bellius, who, it seems, was then in person at Rome.
Our Author describes his own intercourse with Sa-
bellius, and he had (as he informs us) almost pre-
vailed on him to renounce his errors, and to embrace
the truth. But Callistus stood in the way. He, to
increase his own influence, and to promote his own
designs, communicated with both parties, and endea-
voured to ingratiate himself with both. With the
orthodox he professed orthodoxy, and with the Sa-
bellians he was a Sabellian. Callistus inveighed
with great virulence against our Author’, who (it
appears) stood almost alone on the opposite side, and
publicly denounced him with slanderous appella-
tions, calling him a Ditheist, a believer in two Gods.
So great, however, was the address of Callistus, and
so successful were his manceuvres in dealing with
both parties, and in gaining them over to his own
interests, that on the death of Zephyrinus, when the
See became vacant, Callistus (to use our Author’s
words) “thought that he had attained the object of
his ambition,” which, we learn from another passage,
was no less than the Episcopal chair at Rome °.

® See below, Pt. IT. ” See p. 286, 1.
® P, 288, 96. pera tiv Tod Lepupivoy reAevtiv, vouilov rervyy-

80 Narrative concerning

Upon this, “Callistus threw off Sabellius as he-
terodox, through fear of me (says our Author), and
because he supposed that he would thus be able to
wipe off the stain of obloquy to which he was ex-
posed in the eye of the Churches’, as not beingof a
sound faith.”

Being, however, pressed by Sabellius on the one side,
and by our Author on the other, and being ashamed
to retract his opinion, and to profess the true faith,
Callistus made a compromise, and devised a new
Heresy, denying the divinity of the Son as a distinct
Person from the Father, and yet not professing that
the Father had suffered in the Son.

Our Author proceeds to say, that in the time of
Callistus ’, corrupt doctrine in the Church was accom-
panied with laxity of discipline; and he affirms that
the popularity of Callistus was due, in a great measure,
to the indulgence he gave to the vicious passions of
those who were under his charge. And yet, says
our Author, they whose life and belief is such, “ven-
ture to call themselves a Catholic Church *.” Our
writer, however, treats them as Heretics. He calls

kévat ov €Oyparo, compared with p. 284, 77. ravryy tiv aipeow
expatruve KadAvotos—Onpopevos tov THs euros Opdvov.

* Perhaps, as was usual with Bishops in ancient times, Callis-
tus had sent missives to other Churches to notify to them his
election; and some enquiries or remonstrances may have been
addressed by them, and some requisition may have been made
that he should clear himself from the charge of heresy.

- } P, 290, 42. éxt rovrov. 2-P,. 291; 72.

the Church of Rome. 81

their congregation their school, and says that it sur-
vived at the time he was writing, which was after
the death of Callistus, and that they were named
Callistians *.

Such is our Author’s account of the CaLLisTIaNn
Heresy.

In the perusal of this narrative, two questions
arise. We know that from about a.p. 192 to a.p.
222%, the See of Rome was occupied in succession
by Victor, Zephyrinus, and Callistus ;—

I. Does then the Author intend to convey to his
readers the impression, that the CaLiisrus whose
Heresy he is describing, was Callistus the Bisuor of
Rome who succeeded Zephyrinus ?

II. If so, is this narrative worthy of credit? could
it have been written by Hippolytus, scholar of Ire-
nzeus, and Bishop of Portus, near Rome, who is now
venerated as a Saint and Martyr by the Roman
Church ?

> P, 292, 80.
* Jaffé (Regesta Pontificum, Berlin, 1851,) arranges their Epis-
copates thus, pp. 4, 5 :—
S. Victor, A.D. 190 or 192 ?—202.
(Euseb. v. 20. 22, 23.)
S. ZEPHYRINUS, A.D. 202—218.,
(Euseb. v. 28; vi. 21.)
S. Catuistus, a.p. 218—223,
(Euseb. vi. 21.)
See also Labbé, Concilia, i. pp. 591—615, ed. Paris, 1671.
G

82 Narrative concerning

These are grave questions. It is scarcely possible
to overrate their importance, in religious and civil
respects.

1. As to the former of these two enquiries, it will
be observed that the Author no where ascribes to
Callistus, whom he charges with Heresy—the style
and title of Bishop of Rome. He appears, in some
respects, to regard him rather as a professorial teacher,
than as an Ecclesiastical Primate. He calls his dis-
ciples “a School”—but never gives them the name
of “a Church.” This is the more remarkable, be-
cause when speaking of Victor, who was Bishop of
Rome, from a.p. 192 to a.p. 202, and who was suc-
ceeded by Zephyrinus, he uses no such reserve. He
openly and explicitly calls him “ the blessed Victor,
Bishop of the Church®.” And when in the course of
his narrative he comes to the death of Zephyrinus,
and we expect to hear it recorded, perhaps with
an exclamation of sorrow and indignation, that
Zephyrinus was succeeded by Callistus the Heretic,
we seem to be put off with a vague and equivocal
phrase; “ After the death of Zephyrinus,” we read °,
“he (Callistus) zmagined that he had gained the object
of his ambition’—which we learn from another part
of the narrative to have been the Bishoprick of
Rome.

There is something almost mysterious in this

°-P, 288, 70. ° P. 288, 96.

the Church of Rome. 83

seeming ambiguity of language, which at first excites
suspicion. If Callistus—Callistus the Heretic—was
really Bishop of Rome, why does not our Author
sayso? Why does he seem to decline the assertion 4
Ts it because it was not true? Did he mean to con-
vey the idea that Callistus attained the place to
which he had aspired? If so, why this faltering,
why this hesitation? Why does he not say plainly,—
Victor was succeeded by Zephyrinus, and Zephyrinus
was succeeded by Callistus, in the Roman See ?

2. In considering these enquiries, let us remem-
ber that our Author's narrative was written after the
death of Zephyrinus, Bishop of Rome. He mentions
that event ’. Our Author, living at Rome, must have
known that a Callistus had succeeded Zephyrinus in
the Roman See. And, if Callistus the Heretic was
not Callistus the Bishop, he would (we may suppose)
have taken good care that no one should confound
the two. But he has not done this. On the con-
trary, he produces the impression on his reader’s mind,
that they are one and the same person. He speaks
of the succession of Zephyrinus and Callistus *; he
mentions that on the death of Zephyrinus, Callistus
thought he had attained the object of his wishes.
He thus intimates that, however Callistus might be
regarded by others, he imagined himself to be Bishop
of Rome.

3. Again, he uses the expression—“such events

7 P, 288, 96. * Ps 279; 87:
G2

84 Narrative concerning

took place under him °,” that is, in the time of his rule,
meaning the rule of Callistus; and the events which
he is describing are Episcopal Consecrations and
Ordinations of Priests and Deacons; by which he
seems to indicate that Callistus exercised Episco-
pal and Metropolitan jurisdiction. And, he affirms
that the adherents of Callistus were the majority of
Rome, and he says that they called themselves “a
Catholic Church °.”

4, Besides, 2f Callistus the Heretic was not Callis-
tus the Bishop, then, living at Rome as he did after
Zephyrinus, he lived under Callistus the Bishop; for
Callistus succeeded Zephyrinus, a.p. 218; and Cal-
listus the Heretic propagated his Heresy under
him. And no mention whatever occurs of any
opposition being made to Callistus the Heretic by
Callistus Bishop of Rome. On the other hand, the
followers of Callistus are represented as forming a
majority at Rome.

5. On the whole then we are led to conclude that
—according to our Author,—Callistus the Heretic
was Callistus, Bishop of Rome.

But why then does our Author use such an am-
biguous expression as this, “ Callistus zmagined him-
self to have attained the object of his ambition ?”
Why does he not say that he did actually attain it?

6. To this question we may answer—No one doubts,
we suppose, that Zephyrinus—the Zephyrinus men-

9

éxt tovrov. P. 290, 42. and p. 291, 72.

the Church of Rome. 85

tioned by our Author—was Bishop of Rome. No
one questions that he succeeded Victor, and sat in
the See of Rome for about eighteen years. No one
doubts that our Author intends us to understand
that the Zephyrinus of whom he is speaking, was
Zephyrinus, Bishop of Rome, and no other.

Now, what we may here observe is, that our Au-
thor uses almost the same term when he is speak-
ing of Zephyrinus, as that which he uses when
he is speaking of Callistus. ‘“ Zephyrinus,” he says,
“ imagined that he governed the Church (of Rome)
at that time'.” And “ Callistus (he says) zmagined
that he had attained the object of his wishes,” which
he had before told us was “ the Episcopal Chair.”

Each of these two expressions illustrates the other.
Zephyrinus zmagined himself to be Bishop, and he
was Bishop of Rome. Callistus imagined himself to
have attained the Bishoprick ; and he also was Bishop
of Rome.

7. But why did our Author say that they zmagined
themselves to be Bishops? why did he use such ex-
pressions as these ?

The reason, probably, was this: He wished to
contrast the orthodox Victor with his unworthy suc-
cessors. He therefore calls him “ Victor of blessed
memory, Bishop of the Church.” But, according to
our Author, Zephyrinus and Callistus were heretics.
They ¢magined themselves Bishops. But our Author,
when speaking of their false teaching, would not call

* P. 279, 30.

86 Narrative concerning

them Bishops. He would not profane the title of
Bishop, by assigning it to patrons of heresy, who
denied the Divine Personality of Christ.

8. Such would be our reply to the first question
proposed. Let us offer some further remarks in sup-
port of this explanation.

It does not appear that the Author of this treatise
affirmed that the ministerial acts of Zephyrinus? and
Callistus were null and void. But he prefers to re-
sort to a circumlocution, rather than to call them
Bishops of the Church.

The validity of Episcopal and priestly ministra-
tions, when performed by Bishops and Priests in
heresy, was a subject which tried the patience, and
exercised the charity, of the Christian Church in the
next age to that of Hippolytus, particularly in the
controverted question of heretical baptism, under
St. Stephen of Rome on the one side, and St. Cyprian
of Carthage on the other. It was afterwards illus-
trated by the learning of St. Jerome in his disputa-
tion with the Luciferians, and was elucidated by the
wisdom, and adorned by the piety, of St. Augustine,
in his dealings with the Donatists. |

* In the extract from the ‘ Little Labyrinth,” quoted by Euse-
bius, v. 28, and written by Hippolytus, concerning which more
will be said in the next Chapter, Zephyrinus is called a Bishop
(rpoorecciv Zepupive T@ Eric kd), but the incident there re-
corded might have occurred before Zephyrinus had given way to
Callistus ; and it is probable that our Author would have called
Zephyrinus a Bishop, when not speaking of his heresy.

the Church of Rome. 87

It has been argued in later times in our own
Church, in her intercourse with opposite parties on
both sides ; and it is a topic which requires to be han-
dled with great prudence, calmness, and discretion,
as has been made abundantly manifest by the evil
results which have arisen, on the one side, from that
latitudinarian laxity which carelessly connives at false
doctrine in those who hold office in the Church; and
on the other, from that unrelenting rigour which
rejects the ministration of some who bear rule in
the Church, and deny the validity of the office itself,
when the doctrine of those who hold it is not alto-
gether exempt from serious admixtures of error.

Our present purpose is to note facts, and to derive
inferences from them bearing on the question before
us.

9. We were at first somewhat staggered by the
manner in which our Author speaks of Callistus. A
reason has been suggested for that language. Cal-
listus, and we may add Zephyrinus, are not fully
recognized by our Author in this narrative as legiti-
mate Bishops of the Church—decause they were
abettors of Heresy.

10. Let us now observe, that this language of
reserve in speaking of Bishops in heresy, was charac-
teristic of a celebrated school which traced its succes-
sion from St. John.

St. John himself, in the Apocalypse (a portion of
Scripture which appear to have been studied by this
school with special attention) had said in his address

88 Narrative concerning

to his own Church of Ephesus, “I know thy works,
and thy labour, and thy patience, and how thou
canst not bear them which are evil: and thou hast
tried them which say that they are Apostles, and are
not, and hast found them “ars *.”

The teachers of this School inculcated the duty of
holding communion and fellowship with those who
possess, what they termed the Charisma,—grace or
gift,—of A postolical Succession *.

They also lay great stress on succession of sound
doctrine. The idea is admirably expressed in the
following sentences, from the pen of one among the
most eminent teachers of that Schoo] ;—

“ Genuine gnosis,” or knowledge—says St. Irenzus,
Bishop of Lyons*,—(as opposed to the false philo-
sophy of the Gnostics who professed to be the only
wise) “is the doctrine of the Apostles, according to
the ancient constitution of the Church in the whole
world, and the badge of the body of Christ, accord-
ing to the succession of Bishops, to whose care they
(the Apostles) delivered the Church in every place: in
which ® (Church) has been transmitted to us, guarded

> Rev. ii. 2.

‘ Iren.iv.45. Ubi charismata Domini posita sunt, ibi oportet
discere Veritatem apud quos est ea que est ab Apostolis Ecclesia
successio, et id quod ‘est sanum et irreprobabile conversationis, et
inadulteratum et incorruptibile sermonis, constat.

* S. Iren. iv. 63.

° The reading of the old Latin Version is gue: for which we
ought perhaps to read qud, i. e. where, or in which.

the Church of Rome. 89

without adulteration, the plenary use of Scrirrure,
admitting neither addition nor curtailment, and the
reading of Scripture without corruption, and legiti-
mate and diligent Preaching, according to the Worp
of Gop.”

Again, he says, “ We must obey those presbyters
in the Church, who have the succession from the
Apostles, and, together with the Episcopal succession,
have received the genuine Charisma of Truth’.” And
again, “ Every word will be established to him who
has diligently read the ScripTruREs, among those
presbyters who are in the Church, and with whom
is Apostolical doctrine *.”

Such is the teaching of St. Irenzeus.

11. Let us now listen to one of his most distin-
guished scholars.

As to the grace of ministerial succession from the
Holy Apostles, together with sound doctrine: “ No
one” (he says) “can rightly refute the dogmas
of Heretics, save only the Hoty Spirit, given in
the Church ; which Spirit the Apostles first received,
and communicated to those who believe aright, whose
Successors we are, partakers of the same grace, prin-
cipal sacerdocy, and doctrine °.”

Again, he thus speaks in another place :

“ Let not a Bishop domineer over the Deacons or
Presbyters, or the Presbyters domineer over the
People. For the constitution of the Chureh is

’ §. Iren. iv. 43. * S. Iren. iv, 52.
* Philosophumena, p. 3, 60.

90 Narrative concerning

formed of them all. Not every one who prophesies
is pious, nor every one who casts out devils is holy.
Even Balaam prophesied, who was a godless man;
and Caiaphas,—/falsely named a high priest. The
Devil himself and his angels reveal many things that
are future. A Bishop who is burdened with zgno-
rance or malice ® is no longer a Bishop,—but is falsely
so called.”

Such is the teaching of a scholar of St. Ire-
neeus.

And that Scholar is St. Hippotytus”.

12. Thus, then we perceive that those expressions
in this narrative, which at first caused us embarrass-
ment, are explained by reference to the teaching of the
school in which St. Hippolytus was trained, and to

° ayvoia 7 Kaxovoia, wemecpévos. St. Hippolytus seems to
refer to his own personal experience in these two terms, dyvoua
and kxaxkévoia, ignorance and malice; the first was the case of
Zephyrinus ; the second, of Callistus.

" In wept xapiopdrwv, a work mentioned in the Catalogue on the
Statue ; and embodied in the VIIIth Book of Apostolic Constitu-
tions, whence it is transcribed in Hippolyti Opera, I., ed. Fabricii,
p- 247. See also Preefat. ibid. p. vii., and Le Moyne’s Observa-
tions, Varia Sacra, p. 1074, and Fabr. Hipp. I. 260. Cp. Pear-
soni Vind. Ignat. P.i.c. 4. It is ascribed to St. Hippolytus in a
Vienna and an Oxford MS. The title of this work as described in
the Statue, rept xapiopdrwv aroortodixy wapddoots. The mention
of its being derived from ‘‘ Apostolic Tradition” may have com-
mended it to the special regard of the compilers of ‘‘ the Aposto-
lic Constitutions ;” or perhaps the Title, as engraved on the Statue,
may describe the recension of the work as embodied in the
** Apostolic Constitutions” themselves.

the Church of Rome. 91

the language used by himself in another place; and
thus our difficulties have befriended us, and do in
fact confirm the proof already stated, that the newly-
discovered “ Refutation of Heresy” is from the pen
of Hippolytus.

CHAPTER VIII.

OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED.

NARRATIVE CONCERNING THE CHURCH OF ROME,

LET us now resume the enquiry ;

Whether it is probable that the narrative con-
tained in the Ninth Book of the Treatise before us,
came from the pen of Hippolytus ?

1. In reading that portion of the Treatise, we ob-
serve indications of personal animosity: it is charac-
terized by a spirit of sternness, almost of asperity.
And it would appear to have been written and
published after the death of Callistus '.

Supposing the narrative to be ¢érue (a question
which may be reserved for future consideration), are
we authorized to believe that Hippolytus, the Scholar
of St. Irenzeus, the Bishop and Doctor of the Church,
who is called, by an ancient writer’, “a person of
very sweet and amiable disposition,” and laid down

* See pp. 291, 2; and p. 330.
* S. Chrysostom (?) de Pseudoprophetis, tom. viii. p. 79, ed.

Montfaucon. ‘Immddvros yAvkitaros kai ebvovcraros.

Narrative concerning the Church of Rome. 93

his life as a Martyr for Christ, would have expressed
himself in the language of this Treatise, concerning
Zephyrinus and Callistus, who had been Bishops of
the Church, and had now been called away by death,
from a world of strife, to render up their accounts to
God ?

In our Author’s narrative there are some symp-
toms of self-sufficiency, which may appear to be
hardly consistent with the character of a Christian
Bishop eminent for holiness, as St. Hippolytus is
believed to have been. He records his own acts
(it may perhaps be said) with something like self-
complacency, and even with boastful ostentation.
“ We (he says) resisted Zephyrinus and Callistus *.”
“ We nearly converted Sabellius*.” “ All were carried
away by the hypocrisy of Callistus except ourselves °.”
“ Callistus threw off Sabellius through fear of me °.”

May it not be said that this is the language of
vain glory and egotism? Could it be the language
of Hippolytus ?

2. Besides, in perusing this history, the reader will
not fail to observe that the tendency of some of the
Author’s observations has something of a sectarian
character. He is vehement in his denunciations of
Callistus for laxity of discipline, as well as for un-
soundness of doctrine. If his narrative is true, this
is not surprising. But then his own arguments,
with respect to Church discipline, do not appear

° P, 279, 39. * P, 285, 88.
5 P, 285, 2. ° P, 289, 98.

94 Narrative concerning

to be unexceptionable. He seems to doubt whether
the Church Visible on earth is a society in which
there will ever be evil men mingled with the good.
He scarcely seems to admit that the Ark, containing
clean and unclean animals, was a figure of the
Church in her transitory character. He is not dis-
posed to recognize the Church Visible in the Field
of Wheat and Tares’; he seems almost eager to imi-
tate the Servants in the Parable, and pluck up the
tares before the time of harvest; and he appears to
indulge a hope that the Church on earth can be a
field of wheat, and of wheat alone.

Here we see signs of impatience. And we know
what evil results followed from the workings of a
spirit similar to this in the next age to Hippolytus.
It produced the schism of Novatian at Rome, who
was offended with the facility with which the Roman
Church re-admitted to communion heinous offenders,
and especially the /apsi, who had apostatized from
Christianity in persecution; and who procured him-
self to be consecrated Bishop of Rome, in opposition
to Cornelius*, and so (to adopt the language of |
modern times) became the first Anti-pope*®. Nova-
tianism propagated itself from Rome throughout a
great part of the world, and distracted Christendom.
The same spirit displayed itself in feuds and factions,

7p, 290. * Euseb. vi. 43. 45.

° a.d. 251. Jaffé Regesta Pontificum, p. 8, Berolini, 1851;
a work which may be consulted on the chronology of the Bishops
of Rome. .

the Church of Rome. 95

in outrage and bloodshed, in the African Church, in
the fourth and fifth centuries; and it has never
ceased to operate with disastrous energy, and to
produce calamitous effects even to this day.

Again—

3. Suppose this Narrative to be written and pub-
lished by Hippolytus. What impression would it
have produced at Rome? Here is a Work in which
the Author speaks of two Roman Bishops in terms
of censure and even of abhorrence. He represents
himself as their antagonist. He reprobates them as
false teachers. One of them connives at heresy;
the other founds an heretical school. Such are the
terms which he applies to Zephyrinus and Callistus.
Both of them were Roman Bishops. Both have
been canonized by the Church of Rome. Both are
venerated in her Breviary as Saints and Martyrs’.

Can he who writes thus have been a Suffragan
Bishop of the Roman See? ~Can he be Hippolytus,
Bishop of Portus, near Rome? If so, how is it to be
explained that his name has been venerated for
many centuries by the Roman Church? Would

‘ See Breviarium Romanum S. Pii V. jussu editum in Aug.
26 and Oct. 14. More will be said on this subject in the course
of this chapter. Compare Bianchini in Anastas. Bibliothec. de
Vit. Rom. Pontif, where the date of the martyrdom of Zephyrinus
is said to have been 26th July, a.p. 217. In some Roman Mar-
tyrologies it is placed on 20th Dec., a.p. 218. Concerning
Callistus, see Mansi Not. in Baron, ad a.p. 226, and Lumper de
Romanis Episcopis Sec. iii. § ii. The date of his martyrdom is
placed by some authorities on 14th Oct., a.p, 223.

96 Narrative concerning

she have permitted a Statue to be erected in his
honour in a public place in one of her own ceme-
teries? Perhaps she erected it herself. In a word,
if two of her Bishops had been denounced by him
as heretics, and if, after their death, he had pub-
lished the history of their heresy to the world,—
would she have revered Hippolytus as a Saint ?

Let us consider these points.

1. As to our Author's demeanour and language
towards heretics.

The Apostle and Evangelist St. John was the
beloved disciple. The mainspring of his teaching
was Love. When in his old age he was brought
into the church at Ephesus, the constant theme of his
discourse was “ Little children, love one another’.”
And yet in his Epistles, when he writes concerning
heretics, “ who abide not in the doctrine of Christ,”
St. John says, “If there come any unto you, and
bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your
house, neither bid him God speed: for he that
biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil
deeds*.” And tremendous are the denunciations
of his Apocalypse against the abettors of heresy and
corrupt doctrine, and against those who commu-
nicate with them in their errors *.

The prevalent opinion of the Church, with regard

2 §. Jerome in Galat. vi. * 2 John 10, 11.
‘ E. g. Rev. ii. 15. 20—23 ; xiv. 9, 10.

the Church of Rome. 97

to St. John’s sentiments and example with regard to
heretics, is well indicated by the record of the in-
cident related by St. Irenzeus’ concerning the Apostle.
He quitted the bath at Ephesus, we are told, when
he heard that Cerinthus was there, and exclaimed,
“Let us make haste to flee the place, lest the house
fall on our heads, since it has under its roof Ce-
rinthus, the enemy of truth.”

St. John was full of the Holy Ghost—the Spirit of
Truth and Love. He, doubtless, in his own person,
combined the Christian graces, Faith and Charity,
in harmonious proportion. Among his scholars he
numbered St. Ignatius and St. Polycarp. In the
Epistles of the one we see love for the Truth; but
love of Unity appears to be the master bias. In
St. Polyearp we behold ardent zeal for the Faith,
with vehement antagonism to Error. ‘“ Knowest
thou me?” said Marcion the heretic to Polycarp,
whom he met, as it seems, at-Rome, whither Poly-
carp had come from Smyrna, to visit Anicetus, Bishop
of Rome, “ Yes,” was the reply, “ I know thee well,
—the first-born of Satan °.”

St. Ignatius seems to have sought for Truth through
Unity, St. Polycarp aims at Unity through Truth.

St. Irenzus, when a boy, had seen “ the blessed
Polycarp;” he treasured his sayings in his memory,
and has recorded them with affectionate veneration.
And in imitation of the frankness of Polycarp, and

® jii. 38, p. 204, Grabe. ° Tren. iii. 3. Euseb. iv. 13,
H

98 Narrative concerning

of his sternness of speech, when dealing with Heretics,
~he tells Florinus,—the heretic,—that if the holy
Polycarp, whom both of them had known in youth,
had heard the strange dogmas which Florinus was
broaching, he would have stopped his ears, and
exclaimed—*“ O merciful God, to what times hast
thou reserved me!” and would have fled from the
spot with execration ’.

2. Let us now, for argument’s sake, be allowed to
suppose that our Author’s narrative is true. Let us
see whether there is any thing in it inconsistent with —
the character of St. Hippolytus.

St. Hippolytus was trained in this school to which
we have referred, as tracing its succession from St.
John. He was a disciple of Irenzeus, had heard his
lectures, and has shown himself to have been a dili-
gent reader of his works. He trod in his steps, and —
dwelt on the subjects which had been before handled
by Irenzeus*. He firmly asserted the continuity of
spiritual grace, derived by succession from the Apos-
tles in the laying on of Episcopal hands. Thus he
affirmed the principle of Church Unity inculcated in
the Epistles of St. Ignatius. He possessed also, in
abundant measure, the masculine vigour and daunt-
less courage and fervent zeal of Polycarp. He loved
the truth; he fought manfully for it; and abhorred
Heresy. He had seen its bitter fruits, he beheld it

7 §. Tren. ap. Euseb. v. 20. Routh, Opuscula, i. p. 32.
* As a comparison of the catalogues of their works respectively

will show.

the Church of Rome. 99

flourishing and dominant, in one of its most hateful
forms, making havock far and wide in the fairest
Church of the West. Under such circumstances as
these, it required something more than the spirit of
an Irenzeus, an Ignatius, or a Polycarp—it demanded
the spirit of a Sr. Joun, the divinely-inspired Apostle
and Evangelist, so to contend against Error, as
not to violate Charity; and so to resist Heresy, as
not to execrate Heretics. And let us bear in
mind, that though Zephyrinus and Callistus were
dead at the time when our Author wrote, yet their
Heresy was not dead: Callistus had passed away,
but he had left Callistians behind him °.

Our Author had been engaged in a conflict with
Callistus, and was still at war with his disciples.
That conflict had been a public one. Callistus and
his adherents had denied the Divine personality of
Christ as distinct from the Father. Our Author
asserted it, and Callistus had reviled him openly as
“a worshipper of two Gods'.” Hence this contro-
versy was a personal one. No one (says a great
Father of the Church) should remain patient under

® P, 292, 80, and 329, 37. aipeow Ews viv éxi Tods diaddxous
duapeivacayv. From the terms in which Sabellius is mentioned ©
in this Treatise (pp. 285. 289, 290), it may be inferred that it was
written at a time when the name of Sabellius and of his heresy
had become notorious ; and, according to our Author, the exist-
ence of that heresy was due in great measure to Callistus.

1 Pp. 285. 289.

Hw 2

100 Narrative concerning

a charge of Heresy. If Callistus was right, our
Author was wrong. If Callistus, Bishop of Rome,
did not impose sinful terms of Communion, our
Author was a Schismatic. If Callistus was orthodox,
our Author was a Heretic. Nay, he was worse than
a Heretic; he was a Polytheist. He must there-
fore vindicate himself. He had been accused pub-
licly, he must exculpate himself publicly. And he
could not otherwise show that he himself was not
heterodox, than by proving Callistus a Heretic.

When we consider these circumstances, and that
men, however holy, are men, and are liable to human
infirmities, especially when agitated by strong pas-
sions, or engaged in personal struggles concerning the
most momentous articles of the Christian Faith, it
may not seem to be improbable that one eminent in
the Church, like Hippolytus, should have written as
our Author has done.

3. When we remember also the particular school in
which Hippolytus had been reared, and when we add
to this the fact, observed by an ancient writer, that
Hippolytus gave evidence of a fervid temperament ’,
and was probably of Asiatic origin *, we see no reason

2 Phot. Cod. 202. Oepporépas yvopyns. See also some pertinent
remarks by Lardner, Credibility, i. p. 488, on the style and cha-
racter of the Author of the Little Labyrinth, 7. e. on Hippolytus.

’ A learned friend suggests a parallel in the strong language of
St. Chrysostom against Eudoxia. Similar instances might be
easily collected from every age.

the Chureh of Rome. 101

to think that such a narrative as the present could
not have been written by Hippolytus.

4. We do not dispute the fact that there is a tone
of self-confidence in this narrative.

But let us remember the circumstances of thie
ease. Our Author, whoever he was, was a learned
and eloquent man. Few persons in his age in Christen-
dom, none probably in the West, could have com-
posed the Volume before us. It is rich in human
learning as well as divine. The style is somewhat
turgid, but it displays solid erudition, as well as
luxuriance of language. Let us imagine such a
person as this residing at Rome in the second and
third centuries. He was well qualified to be Bishop
of Portus, because it was the principal harbour of
the imperial City, and was thronged with strangers,
Greeks, Asiatics, and Africans, merchants, shipmen
and soldiers, Philosophers, Physicians, Ambassadors,
and Astrologers, Christians, Jews, and Pagans flock-
ing to Rome.

But let us suppose such a person as this associated
with such Ecclesiastics—and placed under the rule
of such Bishops—as he represents Zephyrinus and
Callistus to be: the one illiterate, the other profli-
gate, both promoters of heresy. Let his account
of their doings be exaggerated—though it is not easy
to say why an Author who writes like the Author of
the Philosophumena (and who appears to be no
other than St. Hippolytus, a Bishop and Doctor of
the Church) should be accused of misrepresentation,

102 Narrative concerning

—yet this we know, that the Western Church at
that time was not endowed with erudition—especially
such learning as that in which our Author excelled.
He had the misfortune to be placed under men far
inferior to himself. And “knowledge puffeth up.”
His own superiority was a stumbling-block; their
inferiority was a snare. Suppose such a person as
this to have been formerly intimate with the holy
and learned Irenzus, suppose him to have been
elated with his ancestral dignity of doctrinal succes-
sion, derived through Irenzeus and Polycarp from
the blessed Apostle St. John,—What a contrast
would he see at Rome! What a severe trial of his
temper would be there—what a perilous ordeal to
pass through! Shall we be surprised that under
such cireumstances as these, expressions of conscious
superiority, or even of vituperative indignation,
should have escaped the lips of Hippolytus ?

5. But, it may be said, Is there not a sectarian
bias in this narrative? Is not the Author almost a
Novatian before Novatianism,—a Donatist before
Donatus? Can this be Hippolytus ?

There is doubtless a tendency to Novatianism in
this portion of our Author’s work. Some of his
principles, carried out without reserve or restraint,
‘would no doubt lead to schism. But, when we con-
sider human frailty, we may perhaps allow, that this
might have been expected.

Almost all the evils in the Church are due to ex-
cess of reaction. Hippolytus flourished in the end of

the Church of Rome. 103

the second and beginning of the third century, when
the evils had no¢ arisen which afterwards flowed
from the development of those principles which have
some countenance from our Author. He represents
himself as living at Rome when the discipline of
that Church was very lax. His remedy lay in seye-
rity. The Roman Church had extended the range
of communion too widely: he would have restrained
it too strictly. Her practice was latitudinarian, and
gave somewhat of a sectarian tendency to his princi-
ples. What is there here that does not occur, even
in the best times, among the best men? It is the
common course of human aflairs. His contemporary,
Tertullian, was offended by the same licentiousness
in the Ecclesiastical system of Rome, and lapsed into
Montanism‘*. Eyen Dionysius of Alexandria, in his
zeal against Sabellius, is said by St. Basil°® to have
sown the seeds of Arianism. St. Chrysostom, in his
ardour against a barren faith, may have prepared the
way for the doctrine of merit; and St. Augustine, in
his strenuous struggle against Pelagianism, may have
been a precursor of Calvin.

But shall we charge those holy men with the con-
sequences which others deduced from their princi-
ples after their death? Shall we not rather sup-
pose that those principles would have been modified
by them, 7f they had known the consequences which

* S. Hieron. Scr. Eccl. on Tertullian, 53.
* S. Basil, Epist. ix. 2.

104 Narrative concerning

others would draw from them; and if they had wit-
nessed the results to which those principles might
lead ? .

Our Author, whoever he was, wrote before the
Novatian Schism. For he was a contemporary of
Callistus, who died in or about a.p. 223. And his —
book appears to have been written at Rome when
the memory of his conflict with Callistus was still
fresh. The Novatian Schism did not. appear at
Rome till near thirty years afterwards (a. p. 251).
Our Author, being at Rome in the position which
he appears to have occupied, would either have
taken part with Novatian, or against him. And,
according to his own views of the case, the Nova-
tians, or their adversaries, would have found a place
in the Volume before us; as is the case with the
Montanists and Quartodecimans, whom he acquits of
heresy, and commemorates on disciplinarian grounds ®.
When, therefore, he acted and wrote as he did, our
Author had not seen the development of the prin-
ciples to which he gives some countenance. He had
not witnessed the evils which arose from the rending
of the Church by the schism of Novatian.

If, then, we reflect on the religious state of the
Roman Church as displayed in this Volume, if we
recollect the painful provocations which such dis-
ciplinarian laxity and heretical pravity as he de-
scribes rarely fail to minister to pious minds, and if

° Pp. 274, 275.

the Church of Rome. 105

we remember that we, living in the nineteenth cen-
tury, have seen the results of reactions in the oppo-
site direction, but that Ae lived and wrote defore the
rise of Novatianism, we shall not judge our Author
from our own circumstances, but shall endeavour to
_ place ourselves in his age and country, and shall at-
tribute his vehement language against laxity of dis-
cipline to his zeal for the holiness and purity of the
Spouse and Body of Christ.

On the whole, then, we see nothing here inconsis-
tent with the character of St. Hippolytus, who flou-
rished before Novatian.

6. Rather, let us now add, we find in these very
expressions, to which we have now referred, an addi-
tional confirmation of the proof that this Treatise
is from him.

We have already adverted’ to the Hymn of the
Christian Poet who wrote at the beginning of the
fifth century, Prupentius*. He there describes (as
it seems) the cemetery and crypt near Rome to which
the remains of St. Hippolytus were consigned after
his martyrdom at Portus, and in which his Statue
was disinterred, in A. D. 1551.

Tt is remarkable, that in that Poem Prudentius
meutions that Hippolytus, the Bishop and Martyr of
Portus, whose death he is describing, and for whose
memory he expresses the deepest veneration, had

7 Above, p. 46. Prudentius was born in Spain, A.p, 348.
* Hymn. peri Stephanén, xi.

106 Narrative concerning

participated in the schism of Novatus. Prudentius
dwells on this circumstance with studious and elabo-
rate exactness. He brings it forward, somewhat
abruptly, almost at the commencement of his poem,
as if it was uppermost in his mind. He desires the
friend to whom he addresses it °, not to be surprised
that Hippolytus, though formerly entangled in a
perverse dogma, was afterwards enriched with the
prize of the Catholic faith—the Martyr’s crown.
For (says the Poet ', whose words shall be rendered
literally) “ when he was hurried away by the furious
foe to death, he was attended by numerous followers,
through the affection of his flock; and, being con-
sulted —‘ Which way was the best ?’—< Fly,’ he
replied, ‘the execrable schism of the miserable
Novatus, restore yourselves to the Catholic people.
Let one faith thrive, which is built on the ancient
temple, which faith Paul holds, and the chair of
Peter. It grieves me to have taught what once I
taught. Nowa Martyr, I perceive that to be venerable
which once I thought to be far from the worship of
God. When he had thus recalled his flock from the
left road, and had taught them to follow where the
right way leads, and when he, who before had
drawn them astray, now guided them aright, having
renounced the devious path, he is brought before
the furious Governor, who was then persecuting the
Christians, near the mouth of the Tiber” (2. e. at Ostia

° Valerian, Bp. of Zaragoza. ' Hymn, xi. 19.

the Church of Rome. 107

and at Portus, the See of Hippolytus), “and who,
having made an excursion from Rome, on that self-
same day, had extended his rage to the shores of the
Etrurian Sea, and to the neighbourhood of the mari-
time Portus.”

Such is the exordium of the Poem of Prudentius
on the Martyrdom of St. Hippolytus, Bishop of
Portus.

He then describes the circumstances of the Martyr-
dom; he recites the last prayer of the Martyr, when
his aged limbs were torn in pieces by the wild horses
to which (the Poet says) he was tied. He describes
the conveyance of his remains to Rome; and their
interment in a crypt or catacomb, and mentions a
fresco on which the Martyrdom was delineated, and
the erection of a chapel on the spot, and the con-
course of people, high and low, from far and wide,
from Alba and Samnium, and even from Nola and
Capua, on the Anniversary when his Martyrdom was
commemorated in that age—the 15th of August.

In perusing this interesting Poem which extends
to near 250 lines, the reader can hardly fail to ob-
serve, that the recantation imputed to Hippolytus is
made a main topic, not inferior to the Martyrdom
itself.

It would appear from the Poet’s words, that the
memory of St. Hippolytus was venerated throughout
Italy in the fifth century ; and that it was generally
known that he had occupied a position of antagonism
to a Bishop of the Roman Chureh. Prudentius

108 Narrative concerning

endeavours to account for this seeming incon-
gruity. He says that St. Hippolytus had been in
schism, that he had led his people astray, and had
formed a separate congregation; but that just before
his death he renounced his error, and exhorted his
people to return to the Church.

This Poem was written more than acentury and a
half after the death of Hippolytus. Some persons
have been perplexed by the application of the
name “Presbyter” in this Poem to Hippolytus, who
was a Bishop. But there is no difficulty here;
though a Presbyter is not called a Bishop by ancient
Authors, yet a Bishop is often called Presbyter’*.
And Prudentius sufficiently declares that the Mar-
tyr Hippolytus, whose death he describes, was a
Bishop, by saying, that he was the Head of a Chris-
tian Church*. It is evident, also, that Prudentius
means us to understand, that whatever the nature of
the schism was with which Hippolytus is charged,
he renounced it at his death—but not Jefore. For
why should the people have consulted him then,

? E.g. Irenzeus is twice called paxdpios rperBuirepos in this
Treatise, pp. 202. 222, and never “Ezicxoros: and, after all, the
Vatican MS. reads, Invenio Hippolytum qui quondam schisma
Novati Presbyteri attigerat, for Presbyter, and that reading is re-
ceived by Arevali, in his edition, Rom. 1805. In the Catalogus
Liberianus, sect. iv., and Catalog. Felician. sect. vi., we read:
**Eo tempore (A.D. 235) Pontianus Episcopus et Hippolytus
Presbyter exitio sunt deportati in insulam Sardiniam.” This
was probably St. Hippolytus.

* Ipsum Christicolis esse Caput populis, v. 80.

the Church of Rome. 109

which way they ought to go, if he had previously
informed them? And why should he say that as a
Martyr he recognizes the truth, and desires them
then to return to the Catholic Church ?

But the question arises—

Could Hippolytus, the Bishop of Portus, have
been an adherent of Novatian, the first anti-Pope, or,
as Prudentius calls him, Novatus—a confusion of
names common in the Eastern Church, and excus-
able in a Western Poet writing in Elegiacs, and
having to deal with a word, ‘quod versu dicere non
est ?”

No, we may reply, Hippolytus could not have
been a follower of Novatian. He could hardly have
survived to so late a period as that of the Novatian
schism, which did not appear till a.p. 251. And
since we have minutely accurate details, in the works
of St. Cyprian, concerning the history of the Nova-
tian schism, and since it is net possible that so emi-
nent a person as St. Hippolytus should have sided
with Novatian, and no mention be made of the fact
in any of those details, we may conclude that he
was not among his adherents *.

* This argument is well stated by Ruggieri, pp. 415—439,
of his elaborate work described above, chapter i., where he has
proved that St. Hippolytus could not have been implicated in No-
vatianism. Besides, Hippolytus, we are told by Photius (Cod.
121), was of opinion that the Epistle to the Hebrews was not
written by St. Paul. The Novatians appealed to it as his; and
grounded their stern discipline upon it. Philast. Heres. 41,

110 Narrative concerning

The Church of Rome herself affirms, that St. Hip-
polytus, Bishop of Portus, was not chargeable with
Novatianism. For she records in her Breviary (Aug.
22), that he was martyred “ Alewandro Imperatore,”
whose reign ended a. D. 235, and Novatianism did
not appear till fifteen years afterward.

She also affirms, that Prudentius in his hymn
has confounded one Hippolytus with another®. For
Prudentius says, that St. Hippolytus, Bishop of
Portus, was torn in pieces by wild horses, but the
Church of Rome in the Breviary assigns that mode
of martyrdom to another St. Hippolytus, whom she
commemorates on August 13; and she also relates
in the Breviary, that St. Hippolytus, Bishop of Por-
tus, was martyred in a very different manner °.

But is there xo foundation for the statement of
Prudentius? Yes, we may believe, there is. Let us
suppose, for argument’s sake, that Hippolytus, though
not a Novatian, had put forth some sentiments seem-
ing to have some tendency to Novatianism. It would
not have been wonderful, that he should be afterwards

> Cardinal Baronius was also of this opinion. Ad a.p. 229,
No. 9. ‘‘ Hee Prudentius, qui errore lapsus tres in unum con-
fudit Hippolytos.” See also his Martyrol. 30. Jan.: ‘* Pruden-
tius tres Hippolytos conflavit in unum.” The same is stated
with much learning and ability by Ruggieri, p. 444.

° Ad Aug. 22. Apud Ostia Tiberina Hippolytus Episcopus
Portuensis ob preeclaram fidei confessionem manibus pedibusque
ligatis in altam foveam aquis plenam precipitatus martyrio coro-
natus est.

the Church of Rome. 111

called a Novatian. The seven Sons and their Mother
who suffered martyrdom under Antiochus Epiphanes,
are commonly called “ Maccabees,” although they died
many years defore the standard of Judas was raised,
which gave rise to the name of Maccabee. Such
eases of anticipatory appellations are common. Hip-
polytus would have been cited by the promoters of
Novatianism as favouring their views. Suppose him
to have severed himself from communion with cer-
tain Bishops of Rome. Suppose him to have de-
nounced them as patrons of heresy and immorality,
and to have treated with indignation and scorn their
claim, and that of their people, to be “a Catholic
Church.” Suppose him to have resisted them
openly. Then it is very probable that the Novatians
would appeal to him, as a venerable Bishop and
Martyr, who had countenanced their cause. They
would avail themselves of his name and reputation—
perhaps of his writings. The Church of Rome would
not have been unwilling that he should pass for a
Novatian; for his antagonism would be rendered
comparatively innocuous by being identified with a
sect, and probably it would be taken for granted,
that he retracted his opinions before he died, and that,
with his last breath, the venerable Bishop and Martyr
conjured his flock at Portus to return to the Roman
Church.

Let us add to this the following consideration.
Another eminent person, bearing the name of Hippo-
lytus, was known as an adherent of Novatian, and he

112 Narrative concerning

was also a Martyr’; and the narrative of Prudentius
concerning the manner of the martyrdom of St. Hip-
polytus, Bishop of Portus, is at variance with the
other records of that event °.

Therefore we are led to conclude, that there is
an error in the details of the Hymn of Prudentius,
particularly with regard to the imputation of com-
plicity with Novatian to St. Hippolytus °.

But we also believe there is a historical basis of
truth, even in that particular.

In a word, the Narrative before us in the ninth
book of the newly-discovered Treatise, detailing the
circumstances of the conflict of St. Hippolytus with
two Roman Bishops, explains and corrects the Poem
of Prudentius. It is the key that opens the lock
which baffled the skill of many critics of old. And
thus those very sentiments, occurring in this narra-
tive, which seemed to have a Novatian direction, do,
when compared with the Poem, supply another proof
that the narrative before us is from the pen of Hip-
polytus'.

7 See the Authorities in Ruinart. ap. Fabric. Hippol. i. p. x. and
ibid, p. xiii. ‘‘ Usuardus 3 Kal. Febr. apud Antiochiam passio
beati Ypoliti martyris, qui Novati schismate aliquantulum decep-
tus, operante Christi gratid, ad Ecclesize charitatem rediit.”

® See ibid. pp. xx., xxi.

® Such also is the conclusion of Ruggieri in his Dissertation on
St. Hippolytus, pp. 415—447.

1 We may here refer to the testimony of ancient authors, who
state that there were certain things liable to reprehension in the
writings of St. Hippolytus, but that he made amends for them by

the Church of Rome. 113

Whether or no Hippolytus (for so let us be per-
mitted to call our Author) did continue in a state
of separation from the Bishop of Rome after the
death of Callistus, is a question of much interest, and
deserves careful investigation. We may hope that
Urbanus’, the successor of Callistus, brought back
the Roman Church to the true Faith, and that the
breach was healed; and there appears to be some
reason for this belief in the circumstance, that in the
year A.D. 235, Pontianus, Bishop of Rome, and Hip-
polytus, were (it seems) brother-exiles and confessors
of the Faith in Sardinia*®. But this is not the topic
before us.

Let us, then, pass on to observe, that the Poem
of Prudentius aids us also in the solution of the last
question proposed for consideration in this Chapter.

his martyrdom. Nicephor. Callist. iv. 31, twa trav ovyypap-
parov eridpia exwv TO tréep ypictod paprupiw TeAcwbels Tov
Ths a&yvolas papmov azrerpivaro. .

It is true we do not know what these particulars were. Some
have supposed them to have been certain points in his prophe-
tical interpretation animadverted on by Photius. Or they may
have been his approximations to the verge of Novatianism, as
noticed in this chapter.

* Zonaras says, that Hippolytus flourished under Urbanus
(Annal. Tom. ii. ap. Fabric. Hippol. p. x.). His words are
remarkable: OipBavod rijs “Exiocxomys ris “Pwpaiwy méAews mpo-
eotoros kal ‘IrrdAvtos nv et, dvip tepdotaros kal copuraros,
‘Exiokxoros tod Kata “‘Popnv IUdprov yevopevos.

* See the Authorities in Fabric. i. p. xxi. Lardner, i. 498,
supposes that S. Hippolytus was martyred either a.p. 235 or
A.D. 250. The former date is the more probable.

114 | Narrative concerning

7. How is it possible that Hippolytus should have
been honoured by a Statue at Rome, if he had re-
sisted two Roman Bishops, who are canonized as
Saints and honoured as Martyrs by the Church of
Rome, and if he had denounced them as heretics ?

Zephyrinus is indeed called a Saint and Martyr,
and Callistus also, and they are venerated as such in
the Public Liturgy of the Roman Church*. But
our Author, who wrote very soon after the death of
both, certainly does not regard either of them as a
Martyr or a Saint. And it is generally acknowledged
and deplored that the records of the earlier Bishops
of Rome are very defective and erroneous. The his-
tory of that Church, during the second and greater
part of the third century is almost a blank, in which
little that is trustworthy has been inserted, except the
names and dates of the Bishops. In course of time
Writers arose, who filled up the vacant space with
legendary tales; and Martyrdoms were recorded of
Popes, who had died quietly in their beds*. The

* The Festival of Zephyrinus is Aug. 26, and we find the
following Collect for that day in the Roman Breviary (p. 1055,

ed. Ratisbon, 1840) :—
Oratio.

** Presta, queesumus, omnipotens Deus, ut beati Zephyrini
Martyris tui atque Pontificis, cujus gaudemus meritis, instruamur
exemplis, per Dominum.”

The festival of Callistus is October 14, and it is said in the Bre-
viary, p. 1151, ‘Callistus ... martyriocoronatus sub Alexandro Im-
peratore. ... Corpus in Basilicam S. Maric trans Tiberim ab ipso
zedificatam delatum, sub ard majori maximd veneratione colitur.”

° Recepta de primis Rome Episcopis plerisque Martyribus

the Church of Rome. 115

Church enjoyed peace and was not assailed by per-
secution during the times of Zephyrinus and Callistus.
It is very improbable, to say the least, that either of
them perished by Martyrdom. We must be on our
guard not to form our estimate of the character and
lives of Roman Bishops in the second and third cen-
turies, from statements which did not see the light
till four centuries after them °.

8. Let us now turn to the Stature. It is observ-
able, that, though all Antiquity testifies that “a Re-
futation of all Heresies” was written by St. Hippo-
lytus, yet that particular work is not specified in the
catalogue on the Statue.

There must (we are led to conjecture) have been
some reason for this omission.

There would be no ground for it, if, in the eyes of
persons in authority at Rome, it had been altogether
unexceptionable; and supposing the first eight books
of our work to have formed the whole work, and
supposing them to have been written by Hippolytus,

sententia erronea est,’’ says Bp. Pearson, Dissert. Posth. i, ¢. iv.
The whole of that chapter is very important in its bearings on the
present subject, as showing the scantiness of materials, even in the
sixth century, for any thing like an accurate knowledge of the
Roman Church as it had existed in the second and earlier part of
the third.

® See Bp. Pearson, i. c. xii. 4, who says, “Dico nullum
Papam aut alium quemcunque fuisse auctorem Libri Pontificum
sive gestorum Pontificalium ante sextum seeculum, imd nullum
ejusmodi librum in Ecclesid extitisse ante annum CLX ab obitu
Damasi Pape” (i. e, ante annum DCCCIYV),

12

116 Narrative concerning

then, when we consider the importance of the sub-
ject, and the learning and ability displayed in those
books, we recognize cogent reasons for the insertion of
this work in the catalogue on the Statue.

But it is omitted. And now, we would ask, Does
not the narrative in the ninth book eaplain the
omission? and does not that omission supply an
additional argument in behalf of the genuineness of
the narrative 4

9. The existence of the honorary Statue is ex-
plained by the Poem of Prudentius. If the memory
of Hippolytus, who had lived in the third century,
and was supposed by some in the fifth century, to
have been an adherent of Novatian,—the first Anti-
pope, the Author of a widely-spread schism,—was so
dear to the people of Rome and Italy, as Prudentius
describes it to be, that they flocked from almost all
parts of Italy to his grave, on the anniversary of his
Martyrdom,—if Prudentius himself, “the Christian
Maro and Flaccus” (as Bentley calls him), erected a
Monument to Hippolytus, more durable than marble,
in the interesting Hymn to which we have referred,
there is no reason for surprise that some of those
who resorted to his grave, among whom (as Pruden-
tius states) were wealthy Patricians’, admirers of his
learning, his eloquence, his piety, and of his courage,
displayed in his life, his writings and his death, should
have united together in raising a Monument to his

” Urbs augusta suos vomit effunditque Quirites
Una et Patricios ambitione pari—v. 200.

the Church of Rome. 117

memory, and should have loved to see his venerable
figure perpetuated in marble, and have inscribed its
pedestal with his Paschal Calendar, and with the
titles of his works. No wonder, we may say, that
they paid this tribute to his memory, although he
had resisted two Popes in succession. If Hippolytus,
although supposed to have been an adherent of
Novatian, who had withstood so holy a Pope as
Cornelius, was honoured with a Poem and a Cha-
pel, there is no ground for surprise that although
he was known to have resisted a Callistus or Zephy-
rinus, he should have been honoured with a Statue.
Perhaps some of those who erected it loved and
venerated him the more, decause he had stood firm
and immovable, and almost alone, against a deadly
Heresy, patronised by two Prelates of Rome *. When

* M. Bunsen places the erection of the Statue at some period
between Constantine and the sixth century (p. 223). There
seems reason for believing that it was earlier; for the Paschal
Calendar inscribed upon it dates from a.p, 222. And as Tur-
rianus (ap. Fabr. Hippolyt. i. pp. 164—171), and after him Ideler
(Chronologie ii. p. 224) observe, the Calendar appears to have
been intended for use in the period for which it was made, and
could not have been long in use, on account of certain imperfec-
tions in its construction. After the lapse of one or two of its
cycles of sixteen years it would have become obsolete. And after
it was superseded, no one, probably, would have been at the pains to
engrave it. If this reasoning be correct, the Statue is of greater
interest and value as being almost a contemporary monument
to the memory, and a contemporary tribute to the virtues, of
St. Hippolytus.

118 Narrative concerning

in the next age to Hippolytus, Sabellianism (the
natural growth of Noétianism) became widely domi-
nant in Christendom, and made great ravages in the
Church, perhaps through the previous example and
influence of Zephyrinus and Callistus as described
in the narrative before us, then another Bishop of
Rome, the great Dionysius (A.D. 259—269) came
forward to stay the plague. He vindicated the true
faith from the aggressions of Sabellianism on the one
side, and of Tritheism on the other’. Then (it is
very probable) the services that had been rendered ~
by Hippolytus to the cause of Christianity by his
gallant resistance to a pestilent Heresy, were grate-
fully appreciated by the Church and Bishop of
Rome. Then his name was beloved, and his me-
mory revered by her. Thousands flocked to the
tomb of one who had contended for the honour
of Christ in his life, and had glorified Him in his
death. ‘Then perhaps this Statue was erected. Then
the infirmities of temper, the vehemence of language,

* For an excellent summary of his history in this particular
respect, see Bp. Pearson, Dissert. i. c. 10.5. See also Coustant,
Notitia Epistolarum Dionys. Rom. (ap. Routh, iii. 114); Ne-
ander, ii. p. 369. Fragments of the work of Dionysius, called
‘Avarpory, or Refutation, are preserved by St. Athanasius de
decretis Synodi Nicene, § 26, and are contained in Routh, Re-
liquiz, ed. 1815, iii. 179 —183. 6 pév SaBedAdos BrAachypet
airov Tov viov eivat Aé€ywv Tov Tarépa Kal ~uradw: of Sé Tpets
Geods tpdrov Twa Kypitrovow eis Tpeis troordces Sévas GAAnAwV

TavTaract Kexwpirpevas SvatpodvTes THY ayiav Tpiada.

the Church of Rome. 119

the scornful sarcasm, and acrimonious altercation were
forgotten. The schism had been healed by death,
and the memory of passionate conflicts was buried in
the Martyr’s grave.

CHAPTER IX.

OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED.

SILENCE OF CHURCH HISTORIANS.

WE have already considered some of the various
questions which occur to the reader when he first
peruses our Author’s narrative concerning Zephy-
rinus and Callistus.

Let us now proceed to examine some others.

1. We see in that narrative two Bishops of Rome,
the greatest Church in the West, not only charged
with Heresy, but with patronising and propagating it.
And they are represented as disparaging those who
were orthodox, and as assailing them publicly with
calumnious appellations, and other contumelious in-
dignities. If this had been the case, we feel dis-
posed to ask, Would not the whole Church have
sounded an alarm? Would not the world have rung
with the fame of such doings as these? Let us con-
sider some parallel cases. What a stir was made in
Christendom, when Liberius, Bishop of Rome, lapsed
into Arianism in the fourth century. And with
what surprise and consternation did the Church Uni-

Silence of Church Historians. 121

versal receive the intelligence, that Pope Honorius,
in the seventh century, had communicated with the
Monothelites? Notwithstanding all the extenuat-
ing circumstances pleaded in their favour, the names
of Liberius and Honorius have been branded with the
stigma of infamy, and have been generally regarded
with sorrow mingled with abhorrence by a great part
of Christendom, from their own times even to this
day’.

2. But who knows the name of Zephyrinus as
connected with heretical doctrine? Who knows the
name of Callistus as the founder of a sect? And if

’ Especially Pope Honorius: anathematized even by Popes
themselves as a heretic, on their accession to the Papacy. See the
*‘ Liber Diurnus Romanorum Pontificum” (ed. Paris, 1680),
used in the eighth century at the consecration of Roman Bishops,
who then made a solemn public declaration as follows: ‘‘ Auctores
novi heretici dogmatis Sergium, Pyrrhum, Paulum et ‘Petrum
Constantinopolitanos, una cum Honorio qui pravis eorum asser-
tionibus fomentum impendit ...cum omnibus heereticis scriptis
atque sequacibus nexu perpetui anathematis devinxerunt. Cum
supra fatis heereticis, Sabellium, Paulum Samosatenum, Marim
Persam, Montanum, Donatum, .. . execramur ac condem~
namus.” This was a part of the profession of faith of the Roman
Bishops in the ninth century.

It is observable that they then affirmed themselves to be not
infallible. For not only did the Popes declare that Pope Honorius
had fallen into Heresy, but their Profession of Faith goes on to
say, ‘‘ Unde et districti anathematis interdictioni subjicimus, si
quis unquam, seu Nos, sive est alius, qui novwm aliquid preesumat
contra hujusmodi evangelicam traditionem et orthodoxe fidei
Christianzeque religionis integritatem.”

122 Silence of Church Historians.

our Author’s narrative is true, they were not only He-
retics, but Heresiarchs. Would they not, therefore,
have taken their place as such in the pages of Church
History? Would not Eusebius have recorded their
acts? Would not St. Jerome? Would they not
have been enumerated in the copious Catalogues of
Heretics, drawn up by the laborious diligence of
Epiphanius, Philastrius, Augustine, and Damascene ?
If Liberius and Honorius attained such unhappy
notoriety, surely some records would survive of
the more miserable apostasy of two Bishops of
Rome in succession—Zephyrinus and Callistus,—
who propagated heresy, and proscribed those who
were orthodox.

Such surmises as these have doubtless occurred to
the reader of this narrative, and they have been pro-
pounded by some as objections to its credibility *.
Let us then consider them. And

1. If in previous Chapters it has been shown to be
probable, that the Work before us is from the pen of
Hippolytus, if we have seen reason for believing that
the narrative in the Ninth book is from his pen, then
we have good ground for saying, that the narrative
is deserving of credit. For it comes from a person
of unimpeachable character, who was a Bishop of the
Roman Church in the age of Zephyrinus and Callis-
tus. Therefore we are bound to say, History is not

* Particularly in an article of an English Journal, which states
also some of the objections considered in previous chapters.

Silence of Church Historians. 123

silent on the subject of their apostasy. On the con-
trary, our Author informs us, that the Heresy patro-
nised by Callistus produced “a very great confusion
in the minds of all the faithful in all the world*.”
It did make a great noise: it excited a great com-
motion. It did not escape the notice of History.
St. Hippolytus is its Historian.

But 2. It may be said, these considerations do not
remove the difficulty. For if our Author is Hip-
polytus, if this narrative is from his pen, how is it
that the facts narrated by him did not become gene-
rally known? If Zephyrinus and Callistus acted
and taught, as our Author says they did, and if our
Author was a Bishop of the Roman Church, how is
it to be explained that the name and narrative of
St. Hippolytus did not give notoriety to them ?

3. Such questions, we may first observe, appear
to proceed from a lack of adequate discrimination of
times and seasons in the Church. They seem to
arise from a habit of mind formed under the in-
fluences, literary and theological, subsequent in time
to the epoch at which our Author wrote. The eyes
of men have been so much dazzled with the splen-
dour with which the Church of Rome has been
invested since the tenth century, and they are so
much impressed with the grandeur and magnificence
which she displayed in medizeval times, that they are
hardly able to see clearly what she was in the first

* F259, 2%

124 Silence of Church Historians.

ages of Christianity. They reflect their own ideas
back from the thirteenth century to the third. But
it is for the calm and thoughtful student of History
to emancipate his mind from the thraldom of these
delusive impressions.

Each age has its own character. The ante-Nicene
period is different from the Nicene. The Christian-
ization of the Empire introduced a new era in the
history and fortunes of the Church. Jf such events
as our Author describes had taken place in the fourth
or fifth centuries instead of the third, then indeed
they would have been noised throughout the world,
and the echo of them, sounding far and wide, would
have been heard distinctly at this day.

4. If, again, the Scene of such events as these
had been in the ast, instead of the West, then it is
probable the world would have heard much of them
for some time. The Eastern Church, even then, was
eminent for learning. But Rome was barren in
Theological Literature. Noetus, an Eastern of
Smyrna, was well known to the Church. But there
were few comparatively in the world to record the
acts of the Roman Callistus. Let us, then, bear
in mind the place and time at which the events in
this narrative are represented to have occurred,—
Rome, in the beginning of the third century. Rome
at that time did not contain fifty Presbyters. It was
still a heathen city*. It has been asserted by Atneas

* Euseb. vi. 43, cp. Optat. ii. p. 49, who speaks of XL et
quod excurrit basilicas.

Silence of Church Historians. 125

Sylvius, who afterward became a Bishop of Rome as
Pius IT. (a. p. 1458), that “* before the Council of
Nicea little regard was paid to the Church of Rome,
and that every one in Christendom looked after their
own affairs,’ and cared little for the doctrine or
doings of Roman Bishops. This is a strong state-
ment; and we should be involved in serious error, if
we estimated the importance of Rome and her
Bishops in the third century by the influence which
they afterwards acquired ®. In external respects,
there was almost as much difference between Callis-
tus and Innocent III., as there was between Servius
Tullius and Augustus Cesar. And it was not more
strange that Callistus, the Slave of Carpophorus,
should become a Roman Bishop, than that Servius,
the Slave of Tanaquil, should become King of Rome.

We may pursue the parallel further. To us the
History of the Roman Church in the beginning of
the third century has been hitherto almost an unex-

* Epist. 31, ad Martinum Mayerum. ‘“ Ante Nicaeenam Syno-
dum unusquisque sibi vixit, et parvus respectus ad Romanam
Ecclesiam habebatur.”

® Neander justly observes, ii. 483, ‘‘ Important as the Church
of Rome became ... yet it was from the beginning compara-
tively barren in respect to all theological science. .,. . Two indi-
viduals only appear to have distinguished themselves as eccle-
siastical authors among the Roman Clergy, the presbyter Caius
the opponent of Montanism, and Novatian, whom Cornelius,
Bishop of Rome, calls 6 doyparirys,” Euseb. vi. 43, a name
which, Neander well remarks, suggests that such a phenomenon
was rare at Rome.

126 Silence of Church Historians.

plored region. It has been what the history of
Heathen Rome is under her Kings—almost barren
of facts, and peopled with fables of a later age. We
have had few materials whereby to form an ac-
curate judgment concerning it. And in this consists
the value of the present narrative in the recently-
discovered Treatise. If it is genuine, if it is authen-
tic, it may almost be called an historical revelation.
It aids us in filling up a chasm in a very interesting
period of Church History. The rescue of this single
Volume from the monastic cloister of Mount Athos,
is a more important event than the disinterment of
a chest of ancient “ Libri Pontificum,” written under
the Kings of Rome.

5. There is extant an ancient Dialogue of a
Christian Author, written in the Latin language,
composed with perspicuity and elegance of style, and
dating as it would seem from nearly the same period
as the recently-discovered Treatise on Heresy. And
it is observable, that the Scene of that Dialogue
is laid at Ostia—within a very short distance of our
Author’s residence Portus’. The reader will anti-
cipate the name of Minucius Felix. This Dialogue,
entitled “ Octavius,” from the name of the Christian
interlocutor, who prevails on his heathen friend
Ceecilius to renounce paganism for Christianity, af-

’ It begins with a reference to the Temple of Serapis, which
stood at Portus. See the ancient inscription in Spon. Miscell.
erudit. Antiquit. Lugd: 1685, p. 329: M. AtpyAuos “Hpwv New-

Kopos Tov ev Ildptw Sepasidos.

Silence of Church Historians. 127

fords no information with regard to the doctrinal or
disciplinarian condition of the Roman Church at that
time. But it shows that it was then a poor and
despised community, or, as Ceecilius calls it, a
“ latebrosa et lucifugax natio*”—it was a “ Church
of the Catacombs.”

_ 6. The History of the Western Church in the se-
cond and third centuries is, as we have said, almost a
terra incognita. Let us consider some causes of this.

The Christians at that time were engaged in acting
and suffering, and had but little leisure for writing.
Apologies for Christianity against Paganism, Vindi-
cations of the Catholic Faith, and Refutations of He-
resy, were their Literature. Being exposed to the
peril of martyrdom, they had little means or inclina-
tion for the collection of materials for History. And
even if Church Histories had been written in the se-
cond and third centuries, they would probably have
been destroyed in the Decian and Diocletian perse-
cutions. Church History is the produce of Peace.
We may thank Constantine for it.

But it may be said, Have we not Church Historians
who profess to describe the early period of the
Roman Church? Have we not Eusebius? Have
we not St. Jerome? Was not he secretary to Pope
Damasus? and must not he have known the early
history of the Roman Church? We have indeed
such writers, and we have reason to be thankful for

* Minuc. Felix, p. 75, ed. Lug. Bat. 1672. See also p. 102,
Pars vestriim major et melior egetis, algetis, fame laboratis,

128 Silence of Church Historians.

them. But let us consider their circumstances.
Eusebius, who wrote his history about a.p. 325, in-
forms us, that he was the first who attempted to
compose a Church History. His words are remark-
able. He claims indulgence because he is “ the first
to engage in this enterprise, and because he is enter-
ing on a desert and untrodden road, and is not able
to find any print-marks of persons who had preceded
him °*.” Eusebius wrote, a century after Hippolytus.
Besides, Eusebius was an Hastern ; he knew little of
Latin’; his accounts of the early history of the
Roman Church are very meagre. And St. Jerome,
though a Western by birth, was an Eastern by resi-
dence in his maturer years, and did not much more
for Church History than transcribe from the work
of Eusebius.

7. We may here advert to a remarkable proof of
the slender knowledge possessed by Eusebius and
St. Jerome with regard to the earlier history of the
Western Church. It is very significant. And, what
is also worth notice, it is connected with Hippolytus.

Neither Eusebius nor St. Jerome knew that St.

° Euseb. i. 1.

* “* Eusebius Latine lingue perexiguam habuit cognitionem.”
See Vales. and Heinichen in Euseb. i. 13; ii. 2; ii. 25; iv. 8;
viii. 2. ‘“ Eusebius” (says Bp. Pearson, Annal. Cyprian.
Pref.) ‘‘ scriptor in rebus Occidentis parum accuratus.” Again:
“‘Eusebiana Pontificum Romanorum Chronologia merito sus-
pecta,” says Bp. Pearson, Dissert. Posth. i. c., 10, p. 101.
Again: ‘‘ Eusebio res Occidentalis imperii parum cognitz,” says
Dodwell, Dissert. p. 110.

Silence of Church Historians. 129

Hippolytus was Bishop of Portus, near Rome. Nei-
ther of them knew the See of which he was Bishop.

Eusebius says that Hippolytus was Bishop of some
Church without specifying the name, and St. Jerome
states that he was not able to discover the name of
his See’, and Eusebius, when he wrote his history,
does not appear to have known that St. Hippolytus
suffered Martyrdom.

8. Let us here notice some other parallel instances.
Kusebius, it is clear, did not know who was the
Author of the “ Little Labyrinth,” from which he
quotes a long extract °. We know that it was written
by Hippolytus *.

Eusebius mistakes Novatus for Novatian*, and
never mentions Lactantius or Minutius Felix. Theo-
doret never mentions St. Cyprian °, and does not ap-
pear to have known the See of Hippolytus’.

If then the Historians of the Church, the most
learned men of their age, did not know these promi-

2 Euseb. vi. 20. S. Jerome, de Viris Ill. lxi. ** Nomen urbis
scire non potui.” ° v. 28.

* Ruggieri says very truly, p. 497, Recentiores Scriptores
multa sciverunt que Eusebio et S. Hieronymo fuerunt incom-
perta, and he adduces various instances in proof, pp. 497-—505.

5 Euseb. vi. 43. 45, and the Variorum Notes, pp. 511. 534,
ed. Oxon. 1842.

* “ Theodoretus Cypriani utpote Latint nusquam meminit,”
says Bp. Pearson, Annal, Cyprian,

” He calls him éxioxoros xai pdprup in several places—iv. 54.
130. 282, and in each of these cases he quotes him after Ignatius

and Irenzeus, whose sees he mentions, but he never mentions that

of Hippolytus.
K

130 Silence of Church Historians.

nent facts in the History of so celebrated a person as
Hippolytus,—is their silence or the silence of others,
with regard to any events in his life, or in the History
of the Western Church in his age, to be regarded as
of sufficient weight, to set aside, or countervail positive
testimony from a credible source? Assuredly not.

When Ruffinus, presbyter of Aquileia, wished to
give to Western Christendom a History of the early
Church, he did not compose an original work, but
translated the History of Eusebius. Sulpicius Se-
verus, and Orosius writing in the West, show how
little was known by Occidental Christians concern-
ing their own early Church History; Socrates, Sozo-
men, and Theodoret, are Orientals *.

Hence it has come to pass, that we have hitherto
been obliged to study the early History of the West,
in the pages of the East. The Easterns were not
acquainted with the early History of the Roman
Church, and we cannot learn from them what they
themselves did not know.

Therefore (we may repeat), no argument can be
derived against the credibility of the present Narra-
tive from any silence of Church Historians.

9. Let us here notice two parallels to the events
recorded in our narrative.

“ How little have we heard of Rome except through the me-
dium of Greece! What should we have known of the Scipios if
Livy had not been preceded by Polybius. The names of Diony-
sius of Halicarnassus, Appian, Dio Cassius and other Greek
writers suggest similar reflexions.

Silence of Church Historians. 131

(') A Bishop of Rome at the end of the third cen-
tury, Marcellinus, who afterwards suffered Martyrdom,
is said to have fallen away in the time of persecution
from the Christian faith, and to have sacrificed to
the gods of the heathen. This is generally stated by
Roman writers, who have composed the lives of
Roman Bishops®. But Eusebius says nothing of it ;
nor any Historian of that age.

(*) Again; A Bishop of Rome in the second century
was induced to favour Montanism: he acknowledged
the prophecies of Prisca and Maximilla, and com-
municated with Montanist congregations. And
how do we know this? From a single passage of
Tertullian'®; if that had been lost, we should have
heard nothing of this important fact. And to this
day it has not been determined by learned men, who
that Montanizing Bishop of Rome was'. But no

° £.g. Anastasius, and Platina. ™ Tertullian c. Prax. c. 1.

* Valesius in Euseb. v. 4, thinks it was Eleutherus. So does
Bp. Pearson, Diss. ii. 9. Neander asserts that it was Anicetus
(on Tertullian, p. 486); in another place he seems to lean to
Eleutherus, Eccl. Hist. ii. 258; Baronius, that it was Anicetus.
H. Dodwell affirms, with good reason, that it was Zephyrinus
himself, Dissert. (ad a.p. 173) de Rom. Pont. Successione, xiv.
§ 9. Dodwell argues this from the close of the Catalogue of
Heresies at the end of Tertullian’s Preescriptiones, ‘* Post hos
omnes, i.e. post Theodotum Argentarium (who was certainly under
Zephyrinus, Euseb. v. 28) etiam Praxeas quidam heresim intro-
duxit quam Victorinus corroborare curavit.’”’ Now, from Tertul-
lian c. Praxeam, c. 1, it appears that Praxeas did two things at
Rome at one and the same time: one was, he induced the Bishop

K 2

132 Silence of Church Historians.

one doubts the fact. Whether it made a noise at
the time, we cannot say, but

Ad nos vix tenuis fame perlabitur aura.

of Rome to revoke the letters of communion he had given to the
Montanists ; the second was, he broached his own heresy, %. e.
the Patripassian heresy, which resembled that afterwards brought
to Rome by the followers of Noetus, and encouraged by Zephy-
rinus. ‘‘ Duo negotia diaboli Praxeas Rome procuravit ; pro-
phetiam expulit et heresim intulit. Paracletum fugavit et
Patrem crucifixit.”

The words ‘‘Praxeas hzeresim introduxit, quam Victorinus
corroborare curavit,” have caused some perplexity. Who was this
** Victorinus ?”

Gieseler proposes “ Victor ” (§ 60, notes 5 and 7), supposing a
reference to Victor, Bishop of Rome, who excommunicated the
Theodotians, and therefore might be represented by some as
favourable to the opposite heresy, that of Praxeas.

The sentence bears a remarkable resemblance to the words of
S. Hippolytus speaking of Noetianism in our Treatise, p. 279,
29, Krcopevys exparuve 7O Sdypa kar éxeivo Kapod Zehupivov
Suerew vopilovros tiv éxxAynoiav, and p. 2841, 77, tavryv tiv
aipeoiv éxpatuve KdAXNoros ... tov Zepupivov ... reiOwv
ddypact.... .

Perhaps we may. suppose that the word Victorinus in the pas-
sage aforesaid is a reading composed of the two names, Victor
and Zephyrinus, and that it proceeded from the doubts of the
copyists wavering between one and the other, and that the true
reading is Zephyrinus. 7

A learned friend communicates a conjecture first made by
Dr. Allix (see Waterland, v. 227. Judgt. of Primitive Churches,
chap. v.), that the List of Heretics at the end of Tertullian’s
Preescriptiones is only a Latin Translation of the BuBdAddpuov of
Hippolytus, seen by Photius, see above, p. 59. If thisis the case,
then the supposition above-mentioned would be more probable.

Silence of Church Historians. 133

These circumstances are important, as showing that,
because Bishops of Rome erred in the second cen-
tury, it does not necessarily follow, that a clear and
circumstantial account of their errors is to be ex-
pected from the Church Histories which we now
possess, or that, when we have such an account in a
single writer of credit, we should look upon his
narrative as apocryphal ’.

10. But we are understating the argument. Our
Author is not alone in recording the errors of
Callistus.

Theodoret, the Ecclesiastical Historian and Bishop
of Cyrus in the fifth century, in his compendious ac-
count of Heresies, adds to his article on Noetus, a
shorter one on Callistus *.

“ Callistus took the lead in propagating this He-
resy after Noetus, and devised certain additions to
the impiety of the doctrine *.”.

Here then is another witness. It is evident, as
will be shown hereafter, from a comparison of Theo-
doret’s Account of Heresies with the newly-disco-
vered Treatise*, that Theodoret, in composing his

* It is observable that Hippolytus in his Catalogue of Heretics
never mentions Praxeas. Nor does Tertullian mention Noetus.
Yet who doubts the existence of either ? .

® It is headed, in the Roman edition of Theodoret, epi KaA-
ANiorov.

* Herat. Fab. Comp. iii. 3, tom. iv. pt. i. ed. Hal. 1772,
p. 343.

°> See below, Aprenpix B, to this Volume,

134 Silence of Church Historians.

own work, used our Author’s Volume, and derived
materials from it. He seems to have contented him-
self with referring to the Tenth Book, being an Epi-
tome of the rest; perhaps he had not access to the
other Nine. But from these facts it is clear, that the
newly-discovered Treatise was written before the time
of Theodoret ; and that he regarded our Author as
trustworthy, and followed him as such.

11. Let us also recollect the character of the Callis-
tian Heresy, as described by our Author. It had no
elements of permanence. For it arose from a com-
promise due to personal and local circumstances. It
was an attempt to reconcile two incompatible sys-
tems—the system of Noetus and Theodotus. It
was not therefore likely to make any great stir after
the death of Callistus. It would soon be obsolete and
forgotten ®. It would be absorbed in Sabellianism,
as even the more consistent theory of Noetus was
soon merged in that Heresy. “ The Noetians,” says
St. Augustine ’, “are scarcely known by any one now;
but the Sabellians are in many people’s mouths.”
No wonder that the world soon forgot the Heresy of
Callistus.

12. It may be here observed, that Theodoret states

° Sabellius is called a disciple of Noetus by Philastrius,
Heres. 54. See also S. Aug. Heres. 41. 3

” Aug. de Heres. xli. Noetiani difficile ab aliquo sciuntur
Sabelliani autem sunt more multorum.

Silence of Church Historians. 135

that no vestige even of Sabellianism remained in
his age*. He is speaking of the East. And pro-
bably it was almost extinguished at Rome, by Diony-
sius, Bishop of that Church, in the middle of the
third century®. Can we then be surprised that the
doctrines and acts of Zephyrinus and of Callistus,
should not have found a prominent place in the an-
nals of the Church ? |

13. If History had been silent with respect to them,
there would not therefore have been much cause for
surprise. But,as we have seen, History is not silent.
And let us proceed to observe that there are also
various scattered notices in ancient ecclesiastical
writers, which, though not directly adverting to the
events recorded in this narrative, yet throw light
upon them, and are illustrated by them.

Thus the laxity of discipline with which our Au-
thor taxes the Church of Rome in his own age is
described in very similar terms by his contemporary,
Tertullian ’. 7

14. Again, a passage has been preserved by Euse-
bius, which was written by St. Hippolytus’. It is from

* Heret. Fab. comp. ii. xi.: od Bpaxd rovtwv diemewe del
wWavov.

* See above, p. 118.

‘ The passages may be seen quoted below in notes to the
translation of that portion of the Philosophumena.

* See Euseb. v. 28, compared with Theodoret ii. 4 and ii. 5.
The ground of its ascription to St. Hippolytus is that its Author
claimed as his own the Book on the Universe, which is known,
from the statue of Hippolytus, to have been written by him.

136 Silence of Church Historians.

the “ Little Labyrinth,” a work directed against the
Heresy of Artemon and Theodotus, who affirmed our
Blessed Lord to be a mere man.

These heretics had alleged, that their own opinions
had been sanctioned by the Church of Rome, “ éz//
the age of Victor, but that from the time of Zephyri-
nus *, his successor, the truth had been corrupted.”

Here, then, it was affirmed, that, under the Episco-
pate of Zephyrinus, a change had taken place in the
doctrine ofthe Roman Church.

Now, if (as the Author of our Treatise states)
Zephyrinus lapsed into Noetianism, which was in-
deed the opposite extreme to the heresy of Artemon,
as well as contrary to orthodoxy, then indeed there
was a change in the teaching of Rome, and the
truth was corrupted from the date of zs Episcopate.

Thus the assertion of Artemon and his followers
confirms this narrative, and is explained by it. ?

15. But this, it may be said, was an assertion of
heretics.

True; but let us observe, How does Hippolytus
himself meet the charge in the passage quoted by
Eusebius*? Does he deny the accusation, by assert-
ing the orthodoxy of Zephyrinus? Jf Zephyrinus
had been sound in faith, and had been acknowledged
as such, he could hardly have failed to repel so grave

And the date of the Author and his subject and style are con-
firmatory of this evidence.
3

dxé Lepupivov wapakexapaxOar riv aAnOear.
* Euseb. v. 28.

Silence of Church Historians. 137

an impeachment by an indignant appeal to the
conscience of the Roman Church. But he does
not thus speak. No; he uses the following words:
“This charge would” (he allows) “perhaps ave
been probable” —this is a remarkable confession ; it
would perhaps have been probable, if something else
had not been the case. And what was that? Does
he say,—/f Zephyrinus had not been orthodox, and
known to be such®? No; he urges no such plea, he
makes no such affirmation; but, waiving that ques-
tion, he says, Jf the doctrines of Artemon were not
contradicted by Scripture, and if the Divinity of
Christ had not been taught by the primitive Church.
He therefore almost seems by implication to admit
the charge against Zephyrinus, as countenancing an
innovation in the doctrine of the Church; and this
admission, if such it be, is explained by the narrative
before us. And let us add, that, in the extract from
St. Hippolytus, quoted by Eusebius, there is also an
invective against an heretical Bishop, Natalius, who
had lapsed into heresy through avarice, and there is
an animadversion on and against “the vice of covet-
ousness, as working the ruin of the majority of men °,”
a remark which was perhaps suggested by the beset-
ting sin of Zephyrinus ’, as displayed in the Narrative
before us. |

5 qv & av rvxdv riPavov 76 Aeyouevov.

® a mAciorous drodkAvotcy aicypoxepdeia.

” Where Zephyrinus is represented as having fallen into heresy
through avarice, See Refutation of Heresy, p. 279, 30, 1,

138 Silence of Church Historians.

16. Another topic of interest, which appears to be
illustrated by the present Narrative, is the following.

When we read the annals of the savage persecu-
tion which raged under Decius the Emperor, in the
middle of the third century (that is, a few years after
the events described in our Author’s narrative), we
feel staggered and perplexed by the stern severity of
that terrible judgment. Wherefore did it please the
Almighty to pour out the vials of His wrath upon His
Church? Why did He permit the heathen to rage
so furiously against her?

The present History supplies the answer. It ex-
hibits the greatest Church of the West corrupted by
Heresy, sullied by licentiousness, and distracted by
schism. Ov véueows, we therefore say, No wonder that
the Righteous Ruler of the World should have visited
her with the scourge of persecution, in order to
chastise her for her sins, and mercifully to call her to
repentance.

Thus the present narrative is fraught with instruc-
tion. It vindicates the ways of God to man; and it
reads a solemn warning to Christendom, by display-
ing the retributive consequence of false doctrine ee
of corrupt practices in a Church.

St. Cyprian, the venerable Bishop of Carthage,
lived at the time of that persecution. In one of his
writings *, composed soon after its cessation, he has
Zedupivov avdpds aicxpoxepdots, and Képder rpoopepopéevy meifd-
pevos, and again, p. 284, 82, Zedupivoy ovra Swpodymryv Kai
iAdpyupov. ® De Lapsis, p. 435, cap. v. -

Silence of Church Historians. 139

expressed himself in language which affords a strong
confirmation of our narrative, and an eloquent com-
ment upon it, and admirably enforces the important
moral which it suggests to the mind.

“The gloom of persecution,” he says, “ ought not
so to blind the reason, as not to allow light to sur-
vive for the contemplation of the divine law. When
the cause of the malady is ascertained, then a remedy
for it is discerned. The Lord would try His house-
hold; and decause a long peace’ had paralysed the
discipline which we had received from heaven, the
divine chastisement roused our Faith, which was
lying prostrate and almost asleep; and when we for
our sins merited severer retribution, our most merci-

® J.e. from a.p. 210 to a. pv. 235. Sulpicius Severus (lib. ii.
p. 383) says, ‘Severo imperante Christianorum vexatio fuit; inter-
jectis deinde annis xxxvil1 pax Christianis fuit, nisi quod medio
tempore Maximinus nonnullarum Ecclesiarum clericos vexavit.”
The Emperor Septimius Severus, at the beginning of his reign,
A.D. 193, was not unfavourable to the Christians (Tertullian ad
Scap. c. 4); but a.p. 203 he issued an edict forbidding them to
receive proselytes ; and persecutions, not however general, ensued,
Euseb. vi. 7. Caracalla, a.p. 211—217, did not persecute.
Heliogabalus and Severus Alexander favoured Christianity, so
far as to regard it on a par with other religions. The successor
of Severus, Maximin, a.p. 235, revived the rage of persecution,
especially (Eusebius says only) against the Bishops of the Church.
Euseb. vi. 28, where see the note of Valesius. Probably it was
then that St. Hippolytus, as a Bishop, suffered martyrdom ; and
there may be some allusion to the fact stated by Eusebius in the
line of Prudentius concerning Hippolytus (xi. 80), as a reason
urged for his death, ‘‘ Ipsum Christicolis esse caput populis.”

140 Silence of Church Historians.

ful Lord so tempered all things, that the storm
which has now passed over us seemed rather an ex-
amination, than a Persecution.

“ very one among us was eager for the increase
of his riches, and, forgetting how believers acted in
the time of the Apostles, and how they ought to act
in all ages, every one was anxious to augment his
own wealth. No longer were Priests adorned with
devout religion, nor Ministers by faith undefiled, no
more was there mercy in acts, or discipline in con-
versation. Many Bishops, who ought to have given
admonition and example to the rest, deserted their
flocks, grasped at Secular gain from lucrative traffic,
and coveted heaps of money, while their brethren in
the Church were famished, and seized estates by wily
frauds, and whe incienees the interest of their money
with manifold usury.”

Such is St. eat picture of the state of tha
Church ' before the Decian persecution, that is, at
the period described by our Author in the narrative
before us. Thus the Bishop and Martyr of Car-
thage, bears testimony to the truth of the history
written by the Bishop and Martyr of Portus.

17. An observation may be introduced here, which
is suggested by this narrative, as applicable to our
own times.

* A similar description of disciplinarian laxity in the Church
is given by Commodian, who wrote in the third century. In-
structiones, v. 873—yv. 1057.

Silence of Church Historians. 141

- It seems to be imagined by some, that, in order to
the maintenance of pure doctrine and wholesome
discipline in a Church, it is almost indispensable
that she should not be connected with the Civil
Power by any ties of alliance; and, in cases where
the Church is so associated with the State, they are
desirous of seeing a disruption of that union, and
cherish a confident hope that soundness of doctrine
and effective administration of discipline will be
obtained by the severance of the one from the other,
and are not to be looked for without it.

Let attention be therefore paid to the condition
of the Church of Rome, with regard both to doc-
trine and discipline, at the beginning of the third
century, as presented in this Volume.

She was not hampered by any trammels of civil
control, but was exempt from all secular restraints.
Indeed, she was precisely in the position which has
been selected as most favourable to dogmatic sound-
ness, moral sanctity, and disciplinarian strictness, and
which, it has been supposed, will, by a natural conse-
quence, produce those inestimable benefits. Be-
sides, she had some among her who were little
removed in the line of succession from the holy
Apostles. The teaching of Apostolic men sounded
in her ears. She had an Hippolytus, the third in
degree from St. John.

And yet, melancholy truth, she was corrupted
with heresy, torn with schism, and polluted with
vice. She was governed by a Zephyrinus and a

142 Silence of Church Historians.

Callistus; and St. Hippolytus was stigmatized as a
heretic. ... Let not the warning be lost!

But to return.

18. We have been reviewing certain passages of
ancient writers which incidentally reflect light on the
Roman narrative of our Author, and receive light
from it; and, in this manner, afford guarantees of
our Author’s veracity. More such illustrations might
be added, and will probably suggest themselves to
the reader, who may find profitable employment in
observing such undesigned coincidences as these.

19. Let us now pass on to notice an objection, which
has, in all probability, already occurred to his mind.
How can it be explained, that a narrative of so much
interest and importance as the present, contained
in a work composed by so eminent a person as Hip-
polytus, should have escaped the notice of the world ?
How may we account for the fact, that it has been
reserved to a felicitous enterprise in the middle
of the nineteenth century to call it forth from the
grave in which it had Jain buried for 1600 years ?

One reply, and one only, as it would seem, is to
be made to this question. It has pleased Divine
Providence that it should be so. And the ways of
Providence are marvellous. The preservation, the
discovery, and lastly the publication of this Volume,
demand our grateful admiration. It may not be
presumptuous to say, that the same Divine Power

Silence of Church Historians. 143

which sealed up the cities of Herculaneum and
Pompeii in their graves of lava for seventeen cen-
turies, and then raised them from the tomb and
revealed them to our sight, that we might see in
them a faint image of the sudden destruction from
fire which will one day overtake the World while
engaged in its business and its pleasures, has had
some great purpose in view, in the wonderful burial
and resurrection of this interesting Work. He Who
allowed the copies of His Holy Word to be de-
stroyed, and Who hid one, and one only, copy in his
Sanctuary, may have had some great design in view,
while He permitted the other transcripts of this
work to perish, in concealing one copy in safe
custody in the monastic cloister of Mount Athos.
Perhaps, also, it may be said, that the form of the
question ought to be modified. The real ground
for surprise is not so much that the other transcripts
should have perished, as that. this one Manuscript
should have been preserved.

Of the works written in the third century how
small a residue survives! Of how many ecclesiastical
authors, who lived at that period, we have nothing
more than the names! Let us cast our eyes over
the pages of Dr. Routh’s “ Reliquiz Sacre ;”’ how
many writers do they present to us of the Ante-
nicene age, how many titles of works, and how few
are the fragments there gathered together. In that
Sacred Reliquary, in that spiritual catacomb of the
Primitive Church (if we may be permitted so to

144 Silence of Church Historians.

call it), a little dust—precious indeed as gold—in a
few sepulchral urns, is all that now remains’.

The reason of this is clear; the Christians of that
age were dispersed by the persecutions of Decius
and Diocletian. ‘Their churches were burnt; their
houses -were spoiled; they themselves were swept
away by fire and sword. The Church was scattered
to the winds. The rage of Diocletian was specially
directed against Sacred Books. The Volumes which
escaped from the perils of those days were like
brands snatched from the fire.

If the work upon heresy now in our hands had
been published in the fifth or the sz#th century,
when the storm of persecution had passed away,
then, indeed, we might have been surprised that it
should not have been known to subsequent ages,
but now, we repeat, we ought rather to be surprised
—that a single copy remains.

20. Let us observe, also, our Author’s position as
writer; it was very peculiar ;

He was an Eastern writing in the West. He
wrote at Rome in the language of Greece. And
he published his work when the use of the Greek
language was becoming less common in Western
Christendom. As the Church of Rome grew in

A

: Bpaxv
opnypa Svoddkputov av-

THVOPOS G7TOOOD *yEpt-
Cov A€Byras edbérov.
fEschyl. Agam. 430.

Silence of Church Historians. 145

importance, so the language of Rome became more
and more the language of the Western Church.
In the third century, particularly by the influence
of Tertullian and Cyprian, the Western Church
began to possess a Literature of its own. Under
such circumstances as these, the demand for our
Author's work was not likely to be large. How
little should we now possess of his master Irenzus,
if his Work on Heresy had not been very early
translated. into Latin. How very scanty are the
remains of any early Greek ecclesiastical writings
that were first published in the West. Tertullian’s
Greek works are lost. A few paragraphs are all
that remain of Caius. Hermas survives only in
Latin. Clement of Rome probably owes the pre-
servation of his Epistle to its having been sent into
Greece. Our Author’s Treatise being published in
the West, but not in the language of the West,
would soon cease to be transcribed. It would be
superseded by other works on Heresy, such as those
of Philastrius and Augustine, written in Latin, and
soon sink into oblivion.

21. Besides, Jet us now revert to the fact already
mentioned before, as established by the testimony
of Photius*, that a smaller work, written also by
Hippolytus, as a Refutation of Heresy, was once in
existence.

Now, let us observe, the newly-recovered Treatise
on Heresy appears to have been either anonymous,

* See above, pp. 59—75.
L

146 Silence of Church Historians.

or at least not to have retained the name of
Hippolytus, and it is a much larger work than the
biblaridion seen by Photius, and described by him
as a Treatise of Hippolytns on Heresy.

It is very probable that the smaller work did
much to throw the larger work into the shade.

Isaac Casaubon has well shown, in his admirable
dedication prefixed to Polybius *, that the making of
Epitomes has tended to the destruction of the works
epitomized. Justin has extinguished Trogus. The
Excerpta made from Polybius have destroyed a
great part of Polybius. It is not too much to say,
that the learned Emperor Constantinus Porphyrogeni-
tus innocently and unconsciously perpetrated a mas-
sacre of ancient Historians, by ordering their works
to be abridged. Henceforth no one would purchase,
no one could transcribe them. The imperial Ab-
stracts superseded the voluminous and costly ori-
ginals ; just as it is to be feared, the cheap compen-
diums of Butler and Paley and Locke would have
done, in days gone by, in our own Universities, if
we had lived in an age of manuscripts, and not of
printed books °.

If a small Work and a large Work, bearing the
name of the same Author and treating on the same

* Casaubon, Dedicatio ad Polyb. p. 18, vol. iii, ed. Amst. 1670.
Accessit pestis alia, Compendiorum et Epitomarum confectio, quod
genus Scriptionis publicé noxium et magnis scriptoribus semper
fuit exitiosissimum. .

* * Epitomes ” (says Lord Bacon) ‘‘ are the moths of History,

Silence of Church Historians. 147

subject, were extant in ancient times, the chances of
vitality were greatly in favour of the smaller. It
was more portable, and less costly. It was first
observed by Casaubon® that Eustathius, the Arch-
bishop of Thessalonica, in his vast Homeric Com-
mentary, rarely quotes from the entire work of
Athenzeus, but generally uses the Hpitome of that
Author; and Bentley has shown that Eustathius ap-
pears never even to have seen the entire Atheneus, but
always to have used the Epitome’. Similarly it
may be remarked, that Epiphanius wrote two works
on Heresy, his “ Panarium,” a very voluminous one,
and an Epitome of it, called “ Anacephalzosis,” or
Recapitulation. St. Augustine has left us a work
on Heresies, and he refers to Epiphanius; he copied
from the “ Recapitulation,” but does not appear to
have known the “ Panarium °.”

Our Author wrote two treatises on Heresy. The
smaller, it is probable, superseded the larger, the more
so because the smaller bore his name prefixed; the
larger seems to have been without it. Four MSS.
have been preserved of the First Book, which has been

which have fretted and corroded the sound bodies of many ex-
cellent Histories ;” and, we may add, of many excellent works on
Theology and Philosophy also.

° Casaubon in Athenzum, i. 1.

” Bentley, Dissertation on Phalaris, p. 95, ed. Lond. 1777.

* * Anacephaleosis sola sine Panario venit in manus Augus-
tini,” say the Benedictine Editors, viii. p. 47, ed. Paris, 1837,
and see Lardner, i. p. 583.

L 2

148 Silence of Church Historians.

published long ago°, and we have this newly-disco-
vered MS. of Six other Books. But not one of
these five MSS. bears the name of Hippolytus.

Hence, it came to pass, that the narrative con-
tained in the Ninth Book concerning the Roman
Church, did not attract the attention that otherwise
it would have done.

22. Nor is this all. Not only did a smaller, and
separate, Treatise on Heresy by Hippolytus exist,
which interfered with the circulation of the Larger
Work; but the Larger Work itself was epitomized
in the Tenth Book: and this Tenth Book, being a
Recapitulation, had a tendency to supplant the other
Nine.

There appears to be good reason for believing,
that, as St. Augustine used only the Summary of
Epiphanius, so likewise Theodoret, in his work on
Heresy, used only this Recapitulation by Hippolytus'.

And this Recapitulation, describing the Heresy of
Callistus (p. 330), does not style him Bishop of Rome,
but merely refers to the narrative of his doings
already given in the Ninth Book.

Hence this summary also conduced to the same
result as the “ Little Book ” of Hippolytus. It shel-
tered Callistus, and helped him to escape from the
notice of History.

23. Further, may we not say, that such a book as

* In the Benedictine edition of Origen. See above, p. 18.
* See below, Appendix B.

Silence of Church Historians. 149

this, published in the West, and containing such a
narrative as that in the Ninth Book, concerning the
Roman Church, was not likely to be regarded with
favour in the region of Rome, where it was composed
and published? It displays a picture, which no
member, and especially no presbyter or Bishop, of
that Church, could otherwise regard than with feel-
ings of sorrow and shame. They would not be eager
to transcribe it, or to purchase copies of it.

And all who are familiar with the History of ancient
MSS., know well how soon a book perished, which —
was not often transcribed. And therefore the wonder
is, not that the other copies of this work were lost,
but that one copy was saved. Probably, under Pro-
vidence, it owed its preservation to its having been
transported by some friendly Greek from the West
to the East, and lodged in a cell of Mount Athos.
And now it has come forth from its place of refuge,
and has been brought back by a Greek from the
_ East to the West, and it speaks to the World at
large.

24. On the whole, it appears, that this Narrative
concerning the Roman Church in the early part of
the Third Century, was written by St. Hrprotytus,
a scholar of St. Irenzeus, Bishop of Portus, near
Rome, an eminent Doctor and Martyr of the Church.
He was an eye-witness of what he relates,—his rela-
tion, therefore, is entitled to credit; it is to be re-
ceived as true.

150 Silence of Church Historians.

No valid objection can be raised against this con-
clusion from the silence of History. History records
facts corroborating this narrative, which is itself a
most credible History, as coming from Hippolytus.
And many causes contributed to. render this Narra-
tive less generally known. The place of its original
publication, the ¢zme of its appearance in the world,
the character of the Narrative itself, were unfavour-
able to its circulation. It was antecedent to Church
History, and Church History was of Lastern growth,
and knew little of the West. And Persecution soon
followed the publication of this Narrative, and di-
verted the mind of the Church in another direction,
and destroyed much of her Literature. The Work
in which this Narrative is contained, and in which it
lies almost obscured, had other literary rivals to con-
tend with. Other Histories of Heresy, written in
Latin, superseded it. Its own Author did much to
supplant it. First, his smaller work, described by
Photius; and, secondly, his own Summary in the
Tenth Book, sufficed for the public demand: the rest
was rarely transcribed, and was soon forgotten. The
Heresy of Callistus had vanished from the world,
and was of little interest to it. Thus the memory of
him and his doings died away. And, in the course
of a few centuries, Callistus, the promoter of heresy,

became even a Saint and a Martyr in the Roman
Church.

Therefore, the silence of Church Historians—such

Silence of Church Historians. 151

as Kusebius and others, writing in the East, in the
fourth century, and in later times—suggests to us
another cause of thankfulness for the remarkable
discovery of the Treatise in which this Narrative
concerning the Roman Church is contained. It
reminds us how much we have gained by this dis-
covery. For this Narrative affords us new and most
effective means for the successful resistance and re-
futation of novel and dangerous errors, and for the
firmer establishment and maintenance of Scriptural
and Catholic Truth.

CHAPTER X.

INFERENCES FROM THE FOREGOING ENQUIRY.—

WORKS ASCRIBED TO ST. HIPPOLYTUS.

In the year 1716-18, an edition of the works, or
fragments of works, ascribed to St. Hippolytus, and
then known to be extant, was published at Ham-
burgh, by Dr. John Albert Fasricius’ of Leipsick,
in two thin folio volumes; a great part of which was
occupied with dissertations on the Paschal Chronicle,
and other subsidiary matter.

The works collected by Fabricius, and published
under the name of Hippolytus, had been attributed
to him in ancient Manuscripts, and had been, for the
most part, received as genuine by some eminent

* §. Hiprotyti Episcopi et Martyris Opera non antea collecta et
partem nunc primum e MSS. in lucem edita Greecé et Latiné ;
accedunt Virorum Doctorum Notz et Animadversiones.

The Second Volume, as far as it relates to St. Hippolytus,
derives its value principally from the Homily against Noetus, in
the Greek original, supplied by Montfaucon from a transcript of a
MS. in the Vatican. In the former Volume the Homily had
been given only in a Latin Translation by Francis Turrianus.

a

Works ascribed to St. Hippolytus. 153

critics and divines. But others had expressed a
doubt whether any of these writings, ascribed to St.
Hippolytus, are really his.

Dr. Mill, the learned Editor of the Greek Testa-
ment, who had purposed to publish an edition of
them, has intimated * an opinion that none of them
are genuine, except perhaps the work upon Anti-
christ. H. Dodwell spoke with much hesitation.
Dr. Grabe was scarcely more confident *®. The Bene-
dictine Editors of St. Ambrose seem to have ima-
gined that all the writings of St. Hippolytus were
lost *.

Such being the opinions of some distinguished
men concerning the writings ascribed to St. Hippo-
lytus on the authority of some ancient MSS., and
inserted as such in the edition of Fabricius *, no
arguments have been founded upon them in our
enquiry concerning the Authorship of the newly-
discovered Treatise on Heresy. We have abstained
from deductions of this kind, as being of a precarious
character, and liable to exception. And the question
of Authorship has been examined on independent
grounds.

But now at this stage of the investigation, when

* Proleg. in N. T.,n. 655. See Lardner, Credibility, i. p. 499.

* Note on Bp. Bull, Def. Fid. Nicen. c. 8. These passages
were collected by Lardner. Cp. Bull, Def. F. N,, iii. 8. 4, p.
596, and Waterland, iii. p. 102.

* Temporum iniquitate perierunt.

* See above, p. 48.

154 Works ascribed to St. Hippolytus.

we have been brought by other considerations to the
conclusion,—that the newly-discovered Treatise is
rightly ascribed to St. Hippolytus,—it becomes a
reasonable and interesting subject of enquiry ;—

Whether the other writings attributed to Hippo-
lytus on a certain amount of presumptive evidence,
and inserted in the edition of his works, bear marks
of being from the same hand, as the Treatise on
Heresy ?

If this is found to be the case, then we shall
obtain a twofold result,

1. Weshall be confirmed in our previous convic-
tion that the newly-discovered Treatise is from Hip-
polytus. And

2. We shall also be disposed to give credence to
the opinion of those who have accepted the other
works—to which we have referred,—as genuine.

The evidence here applicable is partly external,
and partly internal.

I. The Author of this Treatise affirms, that he
wrote a Book on the System of the UNIVERsSE®. St.
Hippolytus wrote a work bearing that title, as ap-
pears from various testimonies, and particularly from
the Catalogue on his Statue, where it is described as
being written “against the GENTILES’, and against
PLato, or on the Universe.” It was, in all pro-
bability, intended to be a Christian System of Cos-

° p. 334.
" apds “EAAnvas kal rpos DlAdrwva } epi rod Tavrés.

Works ascribed to St. Hippolytus. 155

mogony, contrasted with that propounded by Plato
in his dialogue bearing a similar titlh—*On Tur
UNIVERSE, or Timzeus °,” which had been rendered
familiar to the Roman literary world through the
translation made by Cicero, of which some portions
remain.

(') One very interesting fragment, from a Work
having this title, “On the Universe,” and bearing the
name of St. Hippolytus, was discovered in a MS. in
an Italian Library, and thence first printed by David
Heeschel, in a note to Photius *, and subsequently by
Stephen Le Moyne, in his Varia Sacra', and by
Fabricius, in his edition? of Hippolytus °.

On examining this fragment, we find much re-
semblance, both of thought and language, between
it and the latter part of the recently-discovered Trea-
tise on Heresy’. They mutually illustrate each
other. And thus the proof that the Treatise is from
Hippolytus, strengthens the belief that the Fragment
has been rightly ascribed to him: and the ascription
of the Fragment by ancient Manuscripts to St. Hip-

* Platonis Opera, vii. pp. 234—372, ed. Bekker, London, 1826.
The remains of Cicero’s translation are in his Works, vii. p. 930,
and are entitled ‘‘ Timzeus seu de Universo,” ed. Oxon, 1810.

* P. 923. * P. 1119, * I, p. 220.

* And also (in some respects more correctly) in the Sacra
Parallela bearing the name of John Damascene, ii. pp. 755. 788,
ed. Lequien, where a portion of the fragment is attributed to
Meletius, and a portion to Josephus (‘léonr7os),

* The subject of both is the condition of departed spirits in

156

Works ascribed to St. Hippolytus.

polytus, corroborates the proof that the Treatise is

also from him.

another world.

Some of the parallels are as follows concerning

the place and punishment of the wicked :—

Fragments from the work * On
the Universe,” p. 220.
xupiov trdyeiov év © his ko-

opov ovK eériAdpre; pwrds

4 4 “ , ‘
TOVVLY TOUTH TH KWPLW [LN KG-

4 ee Raf
TAAGUTOVTOS...€h @ KAT-
eoTtdOycavy ayyedou dporpot

‘\ x e 7 /, /
mpos Tas ExdoTwv mages Suave-
povres TAS TOV TPOTwWY TpoC-

ld 4, 3
Kaipovs KoAdGELS «6... &

rw TOTOS abwpioral Tis Ai;
TovTw TOTOS apwp s Aiuvn

A 3 /
mupos aa Béorov.

P, 221. of ddixoreis dpiorepa
eAxovtat td ayyéAwv Koda-
orav, peta Bias as déopor €A-

, 2 eu» ~ »
KOMEVOL, O's OL EheoTaTES ayye-
Rot Siaréurrovras 6vediLovres Kal

a~ » > a
poBepO Oppate érametAodr-
TES, THS YeevVNS eyyLov GvTES TOU
Bpacpod ddvargcirrws traKov-

OUG L«

“‘ Refutation of Heresy,” p.
339.

exhevéeabe taprdpov Copepov
bppa abworirtov td Adyou dw-
vas py KataAappbev, kat Bpa-
opov daevaov Aipwvyns yevvy-
topos Aoyds, Kal TapTtapovxwv
dyyéAwv Kodactav éupa de

pévov ev aretA7.

Other resemblances between the Treatise ‘‘ on the Universe ”’
and the “‘ Philosophumena,” indicating their common origin, and,
by consequence, showing that the author of the “ Philosophu-
mena” is Hippolytus, may be seen in the notes accompanying the
translation inserted in the latter portion of this volume. An
argument might also be adduced in confirmation of the Hippoly-
tean origin of this fragment from its similarity to the language of

Irenzeus on the same subject. See Iren. ii. 63, 64, on “‘ the

Works ascribed to St. Hippolytus. 157

This Fragment is of great value. It describes the
place of departed Spirits, which it terms “ Hades ;”
and it pourtrays the condition of the Souls, both of
the wicked and the righteous, on their separation
from the body by death. The former, it is there
said, pass immediately into a state of misery, in
which they suffer great pain, and have gloomy fore-
bodings of the still greater and interminable woe
and shame to which they will be consigned in Hell,
at the general Resurrection and last Judgment, when
their bodies will be reunited to them, and when
they will receive their full and final sentence from
the lips of their Everlasting Judge.

The Author of this work teaches also the follow-
ing doctrine concerning the spirits of the righteous
on their deliverance from the burden of the flesh.

Bosom of Abraham :” “ dignam habitationem unamquamque gen-
tem percipere, etiam ante Judicium.”

This Fragment on the Universe (Hippol. Fabric. p. 221),
speaks of the constituent parts of the dead body, decomposed and
dissolved as in a crucible (xwvevryjpiov), and all its elements,
though mouldered into dust or scattered to the winds, to be
gathered again together at the Resurrection. This passage has
been printed among the fragments of St. Irenzeus (p. 468, Grabe),
whence, in one place, it may be-emended, The Author is speak-
ing of the union of the body with the soul in this world, and their
reunion in the next: and he compares that union to the marriage
tie, in the mutual affection which the body and soul ought to
have for each other: Yuxy ovyxapicerar xabapa xabapd rapa-
pelvaca, @ &v 7G Koop viv Suxaiws cvvodevouca, Kal pi) éx{Bovdov
év raow €xovoa. For viv dixaiws the MS. of Ireneus supplies

vuppi dixaiw.

158 Works ascribed to St. Hippolytus.

They then pass, he says, into a place of rest and re-
freshment, which is called “ Abraham’s Bosom °,”
they there join the society of other holy and blessed
spirits, and enjoy a foretaste of the still greater
bliss of which they will have a full fruition after the
General Resurrection and Universal Judgment, in
the glories of heaven, and which will be for ever
theirs.

This Fragment is of a great doctrinal importance.
It contains—

1. A protest against the dangerous doctrine of
those who imagine a sleep of the soul, in the interval
between Death and Judgment.

2. A no less clear warning against the Romish
Doctrine of Purgatory.

3. A refutation of a popular error, which supposes
that the Souls of the righteous, immediately on the
departure from the Body, are admitted to the en-
joyment of full felicity in heaven, and which thus sets
at nought the transactions of the general Resurrec-
tion, and the Universal Judgment of quick and dead.

4. A proof that the notion of a Millennial reign of
Christ on earth before the Resurrection, had no place
in our Author’s system. This is the more observ-
able, because St. Hippolytus belonged to a theolo-
gical school—that of Irenzeus—in which Millenarian

° The doctrine and language of the Eighth Book of the Con-
stitutions, cap. 41 (p. 423, ed. Coteler.) bears much resemblance
to that of our Author; thus another proof arises, that portions of
the Eighth Book are derived from Hippolytus.

Works ascribed to St. Hippolytus. 159

opinions had previously shown themselves °; and it
may therefore be concluded, that careful examina-
tion of Scripture, and subsequent discussion and
closer scrutiny of the subject, had deterred him from
adopting those opinions, or that he had seen cause to
renounce them. Perhaps it may even be inferred,
that his master, Irenzeus, had seen reason to revise
his own opinions in this respect after the publication
of his work on Heresy, in which they are broached.
However this may be, it appears that those opinions
gradually died away.

5. A testimony to the Doctrine of the Anglican
Church, concerning the state of departed souls, as
declared in her Liturgical Formularies, particularly
in her Burial Office, and in the writings of her ablest
Divines ’.

The Writer also speaks thus clearly * concerning

® See on Irenzus, v. 34. M. Bunsen observes, p. 256, that
St. Hippolytus did not fall into another error of his master Ire-
nzeus, 7. €., concerning the duration of our Lord’s ministry, which
Trenzeus imagined to have extended beyond His fortieth year
(Tren. ii. 39, ed. Grabe, p. 161). Lumper, who has noticed this,
well adds that St. Hippolytus did more than this. St. Hippo-
lytus (in Daniel, num. iv.) says that our Lord suffered in His
thirty-third year. See Lumper, viii. 177.

? See, for instance, Bishop Bull’s two admirable Sermons on
the State of the Soul after Death. Sermons II. and III., vol. ii.
pp. 23—82, ed. Burton, Oxf. 1827. Compare also Justin Martyr,
Dial. c. Tryp. § 5. Tertullian. de Resurr. § 43.

* Ap. Joh. Damascen. ii. p. 775. dvres Sixaor cai adiKor

- A A / ) Ld 4 ‘ ‘ a
éveriov TOU Meod Adyou axOjcovrat rovrw yap 6 Tarhp rv racav

160 Works ascribed to St. Hippolytus.

the Divinity and Proper Personality of Christ, as the
Word of God, and Judge of Quick and Dead. “ All
men, both just and unjust, will be brought before |
the Divine Word: for to Him hath the Father given
all judgment, and He Himself, executing the counsel
of the Father, is coming as Judge, whom we call
Christ, God Incarnate.”

In referring to this Fragment, “On the Universe,”
we feel no small satisfaction in the assurance, that
we there read the words of one of the greatest Doc-
tors of Antiquity, St. Hippolytus.

(°) Another important Fragment from the same
work, “On the Universe,” is contained in a Manu-
script in the Bodleian Library, but was not printed
by Fabricius. It will be found at the close of the
present Volume’; and the reader will see that it re-
sembles the latter portion of the Treatise on Heresy.

It also contains a valuable statement of the Doc-
trine of Repentance; and corroborates the proofs
already adduced, that St. Hippolytus was not a
Novatian.

II. Let us now advert to another Fragment, not
included in the edition of Hippolytus by Fabricius.

The Author of a Work, which was written in the
age of Zephyrinus, against the Heresy which denied
the Divinity of Christ, and which was called the
kpiow Sédwxe, kal aitos BovAnv Ilarpos érirehOv Kpirys mapa-
yiveras dv Xpiorov tpocayopevopev Oedv evavOpwryjcavra.

° Below, Appendix A.

Works ascribed to St. Hippolytus. 161

* LirtLeE LABYRINTH,” referred in that work, as we
have seen (p. 30), to the Treatise “On the Uni-
verse,” as written by himself.

An Extract from the “ Labyrinth” has been pre-
served by Eusebius’, and, as we have also seen, it
reflects light on the Narrative concerning the Church
of Rome, contained in the newly-discovered Treatise.
We find, also, some similarity of manner between
that fragment and the relation just mentioned.

The fragment is itself a narrative; it concerns the
state of Ecclesiastical affairs, during the Episcopate
of Zephyrinus; and it may be regarded as introduc-
tory to the history contained in the Ninth Book of
our Treatise. It bears a strong resemblance to our
Treatise in the general view that it takes of Heresies.
It represents them as derived from ancient schools
of Heathen Philosophy; and affirms, that they owe
much more to the teaching of the Portico, the Ly-
ceum, and the Academy, than.to that of the Scrip-
tures and the Church.

There is also a resemblance between the diction of
this fragment and the works of Ireneus’.

* Euseb. v. 28, andin Routh’s Reliq. Sacr. ii. 7—12, ed. 1814.
See there p. 19, where Dr. Routh well says, ‘ probabiliter con-
tendere quis possit opus, de quo agimus, Parvum Labyrinthum
ascribendum Hippolyto esse.” Dr. Routh was the first to ascribe
the Labyrinth to Hippolytus ; and time has shown the soundness
of his conjecture.

* E. 9. ypadas Oeias pepadiovpyjxace sc. heeretici. Compare St,
Irenzeus, Preface, padcovpyotvres ta Adyta Tod Beod.

Let me take this opportunity of noticing a passage in the

M

162 Works ascribed to St. Hippolytus.

In a doctrinal point of view it is valuable, as af-
firming (in opposition to the assertions of the Theo-
dotian heretics), that the Divinity of Christ, the
Word of God, is taught in Holy Scripture, and had
been continually and constantly maintained by the
Church from the first *.

Proemium or Preface of St. Irenzeus which appears to have
caused much perplexity. He is speaking of the strange tenets
of the Valentinian Gnostics, which he promises to disclose to his
reader. dvaykaiov iynodynv pnvioal cou ta TEepatddn Kai Babéa
pvotnpia & ov mdvTes xwpodow eel pi) TavTEes TOV eyKepadov
‘EZELITYKASIN. The latter words have not been explained.
The word égerrvxacw is corrupt, and ought, probably, to be cor-
rected into "EZEIITIKASIN, and the sense would be, “‘I have
thought it necessary to expound to you these portentous and
profound mysteries, which all men do not comprehend, because
(forsooth, to adopt their expression) men have not sifted their
brains.” St. Irenzeus alludes to the Gnostic notion derived from
some medical theories (which may be seen in Stieren’s edition),
that the brain must be cleansed by the discharge of phlegmatice
humours through the nasal membranes as through a sieve, that
the mind might be clarified, and be competent to understand their
subtle speculations. This they called éxricoew or Swarriocew
Tov éyxépodov. The same correction is to be made in lian. Hist.
Animal. xvii. 31. éxrrvoodpmevov dépa, Perizon. p. 949, where
the Medicean MS. has very nearly preserved the true reading
éxrticodpevov. It has éxrticdopevov. The false reading d:a-
atjoavres Kerra. for duarricarres still remains in some editions of
Theophrastus, Hist. Plant. ix. 17.

> E. g. ddeApav éort ypdppata zperPirepa tay Bixropos xpovev
év ots Grace Oeoroyettar 6 xpiotds: Wadpol S€ door Kai @dai
ddedpav ar apxns trd tivtay ypadeicat tov AOTON od Geod
tov XPISTON tpvotor Ocoroyodrvrtes.

Works ascribed to St. Hippolytus. 163

This Fragment,—not inserted in the edition pub-
lished by Fabricius—will doubtless find a place in
future collections of the works of St. Hippolytus.

III. Let us now pass on to another work ascribed
to St. Hippolytus.

This is a CHRONICLE; or, rather, a Chronological
Epitome, which exists (as far as is known) only in
Latin, and was first printed at Ingolstadt, in 1602 %,
from two Paris Manuscripts; whence it was trans-
ferred into the edition of Fabricius *®. It does not
bear the name of Hippolytus. But since it is appa-
rent from internal evidence, that it was composed
in the age of Alexander Severus (when Hippolytus
flourished), and is continued to a.p. 235, and since
the Catalogue on the Statue of Hippolytus attests
that he had composed such a work; therefore it
has been attributed to him by some learned per-
sons °.

* In Canisii Antiquarum Lectionum, tom. ii. p. 179. It was
also printed by Labbé, Bibl. nov. MS. p. 298, Paris, 1657, from
a third MS.

* i. pp. 49—59.

° Tt is entitled by Fabricius “ Chronicon Anonymi quod ad
S. Hippolytum viri docti referunt; certé scriptum illa etate,”
p- 49. Bp. Pearson, Dissert. Posthuma, i. cap. x. § 1, calls the
author “‘quidam anonymus.” See also Dodwell, Diss. c. xiv.
§ xix., doubts whether it is by S. Hippolytus. Bianchini argues
that it cannot be a work of Hippolytus from certain discrepancies
between it and the Paschal Canon on the Statue. Dissert. cap.
iii. § vii.

M 2

164 Works ascribed to St. Hippolytus.

The discovery of the present Treatise appears to
remove all doubt on this subject.

Our Author informs us’ that he had written a
chronological work, and refers his readers to it. He
then introduces an abstract of his chronological sys-
tem, in regard to Jewish History. Suffice it to say,
that the details in the Treatise harmonize in lan-
guage and substance with those contained in the
Chronicle *. They seem to be from the same hand.

Thus, then, the Treatise strengthens the evidence
already existing, that the work in question is by
Hippolytus °.

IV. Another writing, attributed in Manuscript
copies to Hippolytus, and inserted in the edition of
Fabricius, comes next under consideration. It is

1”

entitled, “ConcerNiINnG ANTICHRIST!.” Such a work
was written by St. Hippolytus, as we know from
the testimony of St. Jerome’ and Photius*; An-

’ P. 331, 81. |

® Compare Philosophumena, pp. 331—333, with the Chronicon
in Fabricius’ edition of Hippoiyti Opera, i. pp. 50—53. |

* Henry Dodwell supposes, with good reason, that the Chro-
nology of St. Hippolytus with regard to the succession of Roman
Bishops is embodied in the work of Syncellus, Dissertat. de Rom.
Pont. Success. c. xiv.

‘i. p. 4. It was first published by Marquard Gudius, from
two French MSS., at Paris, 1661, and after him by Combefisius,
in a Catena on Jeremia ii. p. 449.

* De Viris Illustr. 61.

* Phot. Bibl. Cod. 202.

Works ascribed to St. Hippolytus. 165

dreas, of Cesarea, and Arethas, refer to it in their
comments on the Apocalypse *.

On comparing this work with the Treatise on
Heresy, we see good reason to believe that they are
from the same hand°; and, therefore, it being granted
that our Treatise is by Hippolytus, we are confirmed
in the persuasion, that the Work on Antichrist is
from him; and the ascription of a Work on Anti-
christ to Hippolytus by Ancient Authors, Jerome
and Photius, and of this particular Work on Anti-
christ to him by ancient MSS., is a further proof
that the Treatise on Heresy is by Hippolytus.

There is also considerable similarity in some pas-
sages of this Work to certain sections of the Work
on Heresy by St. Irenzus, the master of St. Hippo-
lytus, especially in those portions where our Author
treats on the Apocalyptic prophecies °. Upon these,
however, the reader may remark, that Hippolytus
appears studiously to have avoided any approximation

* On the Revelation, xii. 18; xiii. 1; xviii. 10.
° E. g. Work on Antichrist. Treatise on Heresy.

p. 5, c. 2. pi wAavG, used pa- p. 836. 18. pa wAavd, used pa-
renthetically. renthetically.

p- 5, c. 2. Description of An- p. 337. 46. Description of An-
cient Prophecy; also p. 16, cient Prophecy.
cap. 31.

p- 5, c. 8. Adyos 6 rod @eod p. 336. 44. Adyos 5 @eod, 6
Tlais. mpwrtdyovos ILarpds Iais.

p. 6, c. 3. eis 6 rod Ocod Mais.

* Compare p. 25, c. 50, on the name of the Beast in the Apo-
calypse, with Irenzeus v. 30.

166 Works ascribed to St. Hippolytus.

to Millenarian tenets, favoured in some degree by his
predecessor and teacher, St. Irenzeus. Indeed, he
inculeates doctrines wholly at variance with Mille-
narian notions’. What has been already said ® with
regard to the Author of the Treatise on the Universe,
in this respect is applicable here. 7

This Treatise was not a public address, but was
transmitted privately to a certain Theophilus, and
was accompanied with expressions of reverential
fear ®, and with a strict charge of secrecy, reserving
and limiting it to the use of holy and faithful men, and
prohibiting any communication of it to Unbelievers.

One reason for such caution appears to have been
as follows. The Author identifies the Fourth Mo-
narchy of Daniel with the Roman Empire’; and he
also identifies the Babylon of the Apocalypse with
the City of Rome’. And, since the Prophecies of
Daniel and the Apocalypse, as he interprets them,
describe the utter destruction of the Fourth Mo-
narchy, and portend the total extinction of the mys-
tical Babylon, his expositions would have been very

” See particularly cap. 44—46, on the Two Advents of Christ,
and cap. 64, on the Second Advent, represented as contempora-
neous with the General Resurrection, and Judgment, and Confla-
gration of the Earth.

* Above, p. 157.

° e. 29, radrd cou pera hoBov peradidoper. :

* P. 14, c. 25; p. 16, c. 82. Onpiov réraprov—rives obrou GAN
7 ‘Pwpator, drep éorly 6 odypos, 7 viv Ecrdoa BacrX<ia ;

P. 16, c. 34. 4dn Kparet aWypds.

2 P. 18, c. 36.

Works ascribed to St. Hippolytus. 167

obnoxious to such Roman readers as did not look with
pious hope beyond the subversion of the Roman Em-
pire, and the fall of the Roman City, to the full and
final victory of Christ’.

Photius, in his Comment‘ on this Treatise of
St. Hippolytus on Antichrist, remarks that it re-

* Thus incidentally the author explains St. Paul’s reserve in
2 Thess. ii. 6.

* Photius, Cod. 203, prefers the exposition of Theodoret to
that of Hippolytus; from whom, however, Theodoret appears to
have derived benefit, Such persons as may be disposed to re-
nounce the exposition of Time for the exposition of the Fathers,
with regard to prophecies unfulfilled in their age, and who would
thus elevate the Fathers into Prophets, may be invited to reflect
on the judicious observations of Photius, contained in his article
on this Treatise of Hippolytus. And such persons as may be
tempted to imagine that they can form a harmonious system of
interpretation from the works of the Fathers with respect to such
Prophecies as had not been fulfilled in their age, may read with
benefit the article in Photius (Cod. 203), on the Exposition of
Daniel by Theodoret, as contrasted with that of St. Hippolytus.
** Many are the discrepancies between them,” says Photius. No
** School of prophetic interpretation” can be formed from such
elements as these. And they who appeal to the Fathers for
guidance in such matters, do much to invalidate the authority of
the Fathers in regard to prophecies which had been fulfilled in
their age, and also in matters of Christian doctrine, where their
authority is of great weight. They thus also forfeit the privilege
which Providence has given them of living in a later age, and of
reading prophecy by the light of history.

In order to be consistent, ought not such expositors of prophecy
to interpret the prophecies of the Old Testament concerning Christ,
not by the facts of the Gospel, but by the opinions of learned
Jews, who lived before Christ ?

168 Works ascribed to St. Hippolytus.

sembled the Exposition by the same Author of the —
Book of Daniel’, and that both writings evinced
somewhat of a fervid and confident spirit, in the
speculative attempts there made to determine how
and when the unfulfilled prophecies of Scripture
would be fulfilled. But as far as this Treatise re-
cords the judgment of the Church concerning the
true interpretation of prophecies which had been
fulfilled in that age, it is of very great value, parti-
cularly if it be supposed, which appears to be most
probable, to have come from the pen of Hippolytus,

° Cod. 202. Fabricius appears to have been led in one in-
stance to mistake the one for the other. He quotes St. Germanus,
Archbishop of Constantinople, asserting that Hippolytus supposed
that Antichrist would appear in the five hundredth year after
Christ *: and he imagines that St. Germanus is quoting from the
Treatise on Antichrist. No such assertion, however, occurs in
that Treatise. But this assertion was contained in the Exposition
on Daniel by Hippolytus, as appears from Photius, Cod. 202,
who adds that Hippolytus reckoned 5500 from the Creation to
Christ.

M. Bunsen infers that Hippolytus wrote the Treatise in a
time of peace, because he placed the appearance of Antichrist at
about 300 years after his own time.

But this reasoning is fallacious. Hippolytus placed the ap-
pearance of Antichrist at a.p. 500, because he supposed with
many of the Fathers, that the world would last for six millenary
periods (cf. ad S. Iren. v. 28), which, according to his chronolo-
gical calculations, would have expired then.

* The MS. of St. Germanus has éfaxioxiAtooT@ wevtakoclp érer: but
the true reading, I conceive, is €x xpio tod wevrakxoaly érex, The reason of
this will appear from what is said in the note above.

Works ascribed to St. Hippolytus. 169

the scholar of Irenzeus, and a Bishop of the Roman
Church. If this is a work of Hippolytus, then this
Treatise is also of importance to Sacred Philology.
For it cites a large portion of the Apocalypse. In
these citations we have perhaps® the readings of
the manuscript used by Hippolytus, the third in
order from St. John’.

It is also an important witness of primitive doc-
trine.

It teaches, in the most explicit manner, the Di-
vinity and Humanity of Christ, the Word of God °,
by Whom we, says the Author, have received the
Regeneration effected through the Holy Ghost’.
It represents the Church as a ship tossed on the
waves of this world, agitated by storms, but never
wrecked, having Curist as her Pilot, and the cross
of Christ as her mast, and the Word of God as her
rudder, and the precepts of Christ as her anchor,
and the laver of regeneration with her, and above
her the Divine Author of these blessed privileges, the
Holy Spirit, breathing as the wind upon her sails, and

° “ Perhaps,’—because the reading in Hippolytus may have
been altered to suit a text of the Apocalypse.

7 In Rev. xvii. 8 this MS. had xai wapéorot, and Rev. xviii.
éxoAAnOynoav. Both these readings have disappeared from most
recent MSS., and from many editions ; but they are preserved in
the Alexandrine MS., and appear to be the true readings, and
have been restored by Scholz and others as such.

* ce. 61. xpwrrdv, waida Oceot, Ocdv cat avOpwrov xardyyeAXo-
pevov.

“er-Bi

170 Works ascribed to St. Hippolytus.

wafting the Vessel in its course to the harbour of
eternal peace’.

V. Another Work ascribed to St. Hippolytus is a
Homily on “the ’ THropuanta,” or Baptism of our
Blessed Lord. This is a Sermon addressed to Cate-
chumens, inviting them to Baptism. It represents to
them, in glowing language, the privileges to which they
would be introduced through that Holy Sacrament,
and the blessings to which they would be led by the
Divine Love, if they lived a life corresponding to
their baptismal obligations. This interesting and
beautiful Homily has some points of resemblance
to the exhortation at the close of the newly-disco-
vered Treatise. But there is, in one respect, a wide
difference between them. The Homily was ad-
dressed to those who had been previously trained
under Christian Instruction. But the peroration of
the Treatise on Heresy was addressed to those who
had had no such previous training.

The former is to Catechumens: the latter to
Heathens. This difference of occasion has neces-
sarily produced a difference of treatment of the
subject in these two compositions respectively; as
is sufficiently evident from the fact that in the two
last pages of the Homily there are twenty-five direct

* See the notes on this passage below, pt. ii. near the end.

* M. Bunsen translates this title ‘‘a (baptismal) Sermon on
Epiphany,” p. 276, which conveys an incorrect idea. On the
word Geodaveia, see Casaubon, Exc. Baron. ii. sect. xi.

Works ascribed to St. Hippolytus. 171

quotations from Holy Scripture, but in the pero-
ration to the Treatise on Heresy there is not one.
The reader, therefore, will not expect to find in that
peroration an exposition of Christian Doctrine.

It has, however, been called by some “ the Confes-
sion of Faith” of St. Hippolytus.

But this is a very unhappy appellation. It might
rather be termed his “ Apology.” We should fall
into a great error, and do much injustice to St. Hip-
polytus and his cause, if we were to judge him and
his Creed from a speech made to Idolaters *.

This Homily on the Theophania was supplied to
Fabricius, for his edition, by Roger Gale, from a
MS. in the valuable library of his father, Thomas
Gale, and is the only contribution of that kind which
was made by the libraries of this country *.

* It is to be regretted that M. Bunsen has not attended to
these considerations. M. Bunsen’s Fourth Letter, from p. 139
to p. 195, treats of this peroration to the Heathen, and bears the
following title : ‘* Hippolytus’ own Confession.”

It is also to be deplored that M. Bunsen, in framing a ‘‘ Con-
fession of Faith” for St. Hippolytus, has paid little or no regard
to the various heresies which Hippolytus refutes in his Treatise
on Heresy. From the many-sided opposition of Hippolytus to
the different forms in which heterodoxy showed itself in the
Heresies before and in his own times (e. g. in the Heresies of
Cerinthus, Ebion, Theodotus, Apelles, Noetus, and Callistus),
his own orthodoxy comes forth in a very precise and definite
form.

* It is now among the Gale MSS. in the Library of Trin. Coll.,
Cambridge, where it is marked O, 5. 386. Cf. Fabric. Hippol.
i, p. 261,

172 Works ascribed to St. Hippolytus.

It is ascribed in that MS. to St. Hippolytus, and
this ascription appears to be confirmed by the in-
ternal evidence, particularly by its similarity in
thought and diction to our Treatise*. Thus it may
be regarded as supplementary to that other address,
and may aid us in ascertaining from St. Hippolytus
what he himself would have recognized as his own
“ Confession of Faith.”

In corroboration of this assertion, let me ad-
duce some paragraphs from the conclusion of this
Homily.

Perhaps there is no document extant, among the
Patristic remains of the Antenicene age, which states
in a shorter compass and clearer terms the doctrine
of the primitive Church concerning the Sacrament
of Baptism.

The Author is speaking to the candidates for Bap-
tism, and thus expresses himself. “Give me your
attention, [ beseech you, with earnestness, for I desire
to recur to the fount of life, and to see the well-spring
of healing flowing forth. The Father of Immortality
sent forth his Immortal Son and Worpinto the World.
He came to wash man with Water and the Holy
Ghost, and having regenerated him to incorruption
of soul and body, breathed into us the breath of
life, having clothed us with the armour of immor-
tality. If then man has become immortal, he will

* Some evidences of this may be seen in the Notes to the Trans-
lation at the close of this Volume.

Works ascribed to St. Hippolytus. 173

also be divinized®; and if he is divinized through
water and the Holy Spirit after the Regeneration
of the baptismal font, he will also be fellow-heir
with Christ after the Resurrection from the dead....

“ Come, therefore, and be born again to the adop-
tion of God.”

He then warns his hearers not to delude them-
selves by imagining that these baptismal privileges
ean be enjoyed otherwise than by a renunciation of
sin, and by holiness of life. “Come to the adop-
tion of sonship to God....And how? you may ask.
... As follows—If you do not commit adultery, or
murder, or idolatry’. If you are not the slave of
pleasure, if pride is not master over you, if you wipe
off the stain of impurity, and cast off the burden of
iniquity. If you put off the armour of Satan and
put on the breastplate of Faith, as saith Isaiah °,

éorat kat eds, ci 5¢ Meds de == See Philosoph. p. 239. yéyo-
Bdaros Kal rvevparos d&yiov peta vas yap Ocds ... Tod Trwxever
Tiv THs KoAvpBHOpas avayév- eds, Kal oe Ocdv woujoas «is
vnow yiyverat, Kat ovyxAnpdvo- ddgav adrod.

HOS XpLoTOD edpioKerat.

” A negative argument against Jnfant Baptism has been derived
by some from the silence of St. Hippolytus in respect to it. But
it must be remembered, St. Hippolytus had to deal mainly with
adult idolaters. Nothing can be clearer than that he dates the
origin of spiritual life from Baptism ; and therefore, according to
his teaching, they who have the charge of infants and children
are bound to bring them to Baptism, if they would not have the
blood of their souls required of themselves by Him Who instituted
Baptism as the laver of the new Birth, *Is. 1, 36.

174 Works ascribed to St. Hippolytus.

Wash ye and seek judgment, relieve the oppressed,
judge the fatherless, plead for the widow. Come now, let
us reason together, saith the Lord: though your sins be
as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow ; though they
be red as crimson, they shall be as wool; if ye be will-
ing and obedient, ye shall eat the good of the land.

“ You see, beloved, how the Prophet foretold the
purifying efficacy of Baptism. For he who descends
with faith into the laver of Regeneration renounces
the Devil, and dedicates himself to Christ, he rejects
the Enemy, and confesses that Curist is Gop. He
puts off slavery, and puts on sonship. He comes forth
from Baptism bright as the sun, and shedding forth
the rays of righteousness, and, what is most of all, he
comes forth ason of God, and fellow-heir with Curist,
To Hm be Glory and Power, with His all holy and
good and life-giving Spirit, now and ever. Amen.”

VI. Another very important document for ascer-
taining the Doctrine of its Author is found in the
Homily against Noetianism, contained in the works
of St. Hippolytus. This Homily is ascribed to him
in the ancient Vatican MS., from which it was
transcribed by Montfaucon, and first printed by
Fabricius’. It has generally been received as his,
and the points of resemblance in thought and lan-
guage, between that Homily and the Ninth Book of
our Treatise, are so numerous and so striking, that

* §. Hippol. Opera, ii. 5—20.

Works ascribed to St. Hippolytus. 175

they greatly strengthen the proof, that they are from
the same person,—and that this person is Hippolytus'.

The whole of this Homily is so valuable and in-
structive, as a witness of Christian teaching in the
beginning of the third century, that it would be
difficult to make extracts from it. But as it has
been alleged that our Author has not spoken clearly
on the doctrine of the Blessed Trinity’, and as it
has been thence inferred that this doctrine was not
taught in the Christian Church in his age, it may not
be amiss to indicate one or two passages relevant to
that subject.

Having stated that Christ is the Word by Whom
all things were made *, and having quoted the begin-
ning of St. John’s Gospel in proof of this assertion,
he proceeds to say, that we “behold the Word Incar-
nate in Him; we understand the Father by Him;
we believe the Son; we worship the Holy Ghost.”
He then encounters the argument of the Noetians,
who charged the orthodox with belief in two Gods,
because they maintained that the Father is God, and
the Son God,—He replies, “I will not say two Gods *,

* Portions of this Homily have been adopted by Epiphanius
in his article on Noetus. Heeres, lvii. pp. 479489. It does not
appear that Epiphanius had read the article on Noetus and Cal-
listus in our Treatise, or he could hardly have said (p. 479) that
Noetus arose about 130 years before his time; which would
bring Noetus down as low as a.p. 245.

* M. Bunsen, i. pp. 302—304,

> §. Hippol. in Noet. c. 12, ed. Fabric. ii. p. 14.

* c. 14,

176 Works ascribed to St. Hippolytus.

but one God, and two Persons. For the Father is
one; but there are two Persons, because there is also
the Son, and the third Person is the Holy Ghost’.
The Father is over all things; the Son through all
things; the Holy Ghost in all things. We cannot
otherwise acknowledge one God, except we believe
really in the Father, and in the Son, and in the Holy
Ghost.” And he adds that “the Word of God,
Christ, having risen from the dead, gave therefore
this charge to His disciples®, G'o and teach all
Nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and
of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, showing that
whosoever omits one of these, does not fully glorify
God. For through this Triniry the Father is
glorified. The Father willed, the Son wrought, the
Holy Ghost manifested. All the Scriptures proclaim
this.” And having described the human acts and
sufferings, as well as the divine miracles, of Christ,
he concludes with saying’, This is He “ Who
ascended on a cloud into heaven, and sits on the
right hand of the Father, and will come again to
judge the quick and dead. This is He Who is

* Compare also ibid. cap. 9: ‘* Whatsoever the Holy Scrip-
tures declare, let us learn; and as the Father wills to be believed,
let us believe; and as He wills the Son to be glorified, so let us
glorify Him ; and as He wills to give the Holy Spirit, so let us
receive.” Yet M. Bunsen (p. 297) quotes with approval the
following statement, which he has translated from the German
original: ‘‘ Hippolytus decidedly ascribes no personality to the
Holy Spirit.”

° Matt. xxviii. 19. 1 6,48.

Works ascribed to St. Hippolytus. 177

God,and Who was made Man for our sakes, to
whom the Father subjected all things. To Him
be Glory and Power with the Farner and the
Hoty Spirit, in the Holy Church, now and for ever.
Amen.”

Sufficient has now been said to show the value of
the newly-discovered Treatise, with regard to those
other Works ascribed to St. Hippolytus*’. The

* It has not been the design of this Chapter to notice all the
works assigned to Hippolytus; particularly the work ‘‘ De Con-
summatione Mundi,” printed by Fabricius in an Appendix to
the First Volume among “ Dubia et Supposititia,”’ is not mentioned
here. It appears to have been attributed to Hippolytus, because
it is formed in a great measure from his work on Antichrist ;
but it contains many evidences of a different hand and a later
age. See the authorities in Ceillier, ii. p. 368. Lumper, viii. 109.

St. Hippolytus is recorded to have been among the earliest
expositors of Holy Scripture. On his Statue are inscribed the
words goal cis wdcas Tas ypadds: M. Bunsen, p. 281, conjectures
that @dat, which he says “is absurd,” is an abbreviation of dA/ae.
This is a bold conjecture. It is probable that @dat is correct ; and
that it is a title of an integral work, and that Hippolytus wrote
‘Q.AAT, such as he himself describes, ap. Euseb. v. 28, yadpot
Se door Kal "QUAAI ddeAdav dx dpyis bb musty ypadetoar Tov
Adyov rod cod tov xpiordv tpvodcr Oeoroyoivres. Then “cis
macas Tas ypadas”’ is another distinct title, i. e. “ In omnes Scrip-
turas,” “On all the Scriptures,” according to the common mode
of expression for designating expositions of Scripture by means of
the preposition eis. See instances in Nicephor. Callist. iv, 31, in
his account of Hippolytus, e.g. eis 7d "Aura tov dopdrwv—eis
pépyn rod ‘TeLexunad.

In his Exposition on the Psalms, published by Mai (Script.

N

178 Works ascribed to St. Hippolytus.

learned World has been hitherto divided and in
doubt concerning the genuineness of those Works.
Henceforth these doubts may be considered as at an
end. If the newly-discovered Treatise is generally
received as the work of Hippolytus (as there is little
doubt it will be), then it will also be allowed that
those other works were rightly ascribed to him.
And the independent ascription of those other works
to him strengthens the conviction that this Trea-
tise is his.

The recent discovery, therefore, is not only valuable
in itself, but it adds to our former possessions. It
is an accession of a new treasure, and a recovery of
what was old. It does, in a considerable degree,
for Hippolytus, what was done for his fabulous name-
sake, who, after he had been torn in pieces, was
again brought to light and life®. It restores him to
himself '°. |

Thus, also, a gain has accrued to the cause of
Christianity. Henceforth we may appeal to these
works with confidence, as authentic witnesses of the
Doctrine and Discipline of the Christian Church, in
the earlier part of the Third Century after Christ.

Vat. ii. 439—448), Hippolytus describes the difference between
Wadpot and dai. ° Virg. vii. 761.

*° Tt is to be hoped that a new and complete Edition of the
remains of St. Hippotytus may now be undertaken; and that it
may be accompanied by an edition of the works of his fore-
runner and master, St, IRENaus, with supplements and amend-
ments, by the aid of the Philosophumena.

CHAPTER XI.

ON THE THEORY OF DEVELOPMENT OF CHRISTIAN
DOCTRINE, AS APPLIED TO THE WRITINGS OF ST.
HIPPOLYTUS.

In the preceding Chapter, we were led to notice in-
cidentally certain allegations that have been made
concerning the doctrine of St. Hippolytus.

1. It has been argued by a distinguished writer’,

* M. Bunsen, who says (i. p. 302): “I doubt not that some
people will think it their duty to prove that Hippolytus had
the correct doctrine respecting the Athanasian definition of the
Three Persons, It is true he says the contrary; but that does
not signify with the doctors of the old school.....

** The definitions of the ancient Church are good so far as they
are meant to exclude unchristian or illogical imaginations, whether
really or supposed* to be against the historical and philosophical
groundwork of the Christian Faith. But they are imperfect, and
have been foisted into Scripture and into the early Fathers by
means of supposititious words and verses in the New Testament,
by forgeries in Patristic Literature, and by dishonest or untenable
readings and interpretations in both.” See also p. 297 as cited
above, p. 176. See also M. Bunsen, i. p. 176, who says that
“‘ as he prefers St. John’s and St. Paul’s speculative doctrines to
those of the Fathers of the 2nd and 3rd centuries,” so he prefers
the doctrines of those Fathers to the Nicene Creed.

_ ™ Can “illogical imaginations” be otherwise than inconsistent with the
groundwork of the Christian Faith ?
N 2

180 On the Theory of Development

that St. Hippolytus had no clear view of the doctrine
of the Holy Trinity as now taught in the Church
Universal, and especially as defined in the Athanasian
Creed ; and that he ascribes no distinct Personality
to the Holy Spirit.

2. It has also been affirmed by another eminent
person *, of a different character, that St. Hippolytus
“makes the generation of Christ temporary ;” and
it is implied, that he did not believe in the exist-
ence of the Son, as the Son, from eternity; and he
is even charged with not teaching the doctrine of
His Divinity *.

3. The inference which is derived from these alle-
gations, is, that the system of Christian Doctrine, now
taught in the Church, has been of gradual growth,
and that it did not exist in its present form in the
primitive ages of Christendom.

* Dr. Newman, in his ‘‘ Essay on the Development of Christian
Doctrine,” p. 13. “ St. Hippolytus speaks as if he were ignorant
of our Lord’s Eternal Sonship.”

* Dr. Newman says, ibid. p. 14, “If we limit our views of the
teaching of the Fathers by what they expressly state, St. Hippolytus
is a Photinian.” The doctrine of Photinus is thus described by
St. Augustine (Heres. 44, 45): “ Christum non semper fuisse
dicunt sed Ejus initium ex quo de Maria natus est asseverant,
nec Eum aliquid amplius quam hominem putant; ista heresis ali-
quando cujusdam Artemonis fuit.” And therefore, in fact, Hip-
polytus, whom Dr. Newman calls a Photinian, and who, in his
‘‘ Little Labyrinth,” had contended against the Artemonites, had,
by anticipation, taken up arms against the heresy of Photinus.
See above, p. 162.

of Christian Doctrine. 181

4. It would follow as a corollary from this proposi-
tion, that the body of Christian Doctrine has an elastic
quality, and is capable of indefinite expansion, and
that, whatever may now be held to be true, may be
augmented by additional articles of faith, propounded
at a future time.

5. It is affirmed by the former ‘ of these two parties,
that this process of evolution has been effected by
what he terms “the Universal Conscience,” which,
when analyzed, appears to be only another name for
the spirit of each individual claiming supremacy—if
not infallibility—for himself ®.

6. The other party ° to whom we have referred does
not allow this, but maintains that the office of guid-
ing and regulating “the Development of Christian
Doctrine,” is a prerogative appertaining to one per-

* M. Bunsen, p. 172. ‘‘ The Universal Conscience is God’s
highest Interpreter.” See also p. 175.

* If this is not the true meaning of the term “ Universal Con-
science,” and if it be affirmed that this ‘‘ Universal Conscience ”’ is
a spirit pervading and animating a well-organized body, let us
be permitted to enquire, Where are its corporate acts? Where
are its confessions? Has it ever promulgated a symbol, or even a
single article, of Faith? Has it ever received any? ‘Till it has
performed these elementary functions, and has articulated the
language of a body, we must be permitted to doubt whether it is a
corporate principle, and must believe that it is only another name
for that self-sufficient individualism, which resolves men into
units, who can coalesce only in negations,

* Dr. Newman’s Essay, chap. ii. sect. ii., “On a developing
Authority in Christianity.”

182 On the Theory of Development

son in the Church, who is regarded by this party as
her supreme and infallible Head on earth—the Bishop
of Rome.

The Gest of these theories is that of M. Bunsen.
The second, that of Dr. Newman.

M. Bunsen’s high position entitles him to consi-
deration. His character, abilities, and influence,
commend his statements to respectful attention,
which doubtless they will receive, and have already
received, from a large number of persons. His as-
sertions refer to matters of paramount importance.
Therefore it is indispensable, for the sake of truth,
that they should be carefully examined, and-that, if
they are not well grounded, their inaccuracies should ~
be made manifest, and the world be cautioned against
them. And M. Bunsen himself, as a lover of Truth,
will be among the first to desire that this should be
the case.

Let me, therefore, observe, with feelings of deferen-
tial respect to M. Bunsen’s station and office, that he
has not dealt fairly with St. Hippolytus. He has
imagined his address to Heathens to be “ a Confes-
sion of Faith.” He asserts, that the Scriptures and
the Works of the Fathers have been interpolated with
“supposititious words and verses foisted into them,”
in order to make them speak the language of eccle-
siastical definitions. He affirms, that the Sacred Text
of the New Testament has been adulterated with

of Christian Doctrine. 183

“ dishonest or untenable readings and interpretations.”
He has allowed this charge to stand, in vague and
dark generality, to overawe the ignorant and alarm
the credulous. And, having brought these heavy
accusations against the text of Holy Writ ’,—accusa-
tions the more formidable because they are indefinite,
and cannot therefore be fairly met, and encountered
face to face,—he has proceeded to treat St. Hippolytus
as he charges others with having treated Holy Scrip-
ture. Sometimes he has corrupted the text of Hip-
polytus with untenable readings. Sometimes he has
disfigured his sense by erroneous interpretations. He
has charged others with the heinous sin of tamper-
ing with the Scriptures, in order to make them
square with preconcerted definitions. Far be it from
us to impute any such motives to M. Bunsen, in his
dealings with Hippolytus. But the fact is, in some
cases he has made St. Hippolytus appear to be he-
retical. |

In the speech which he puts into the mouth of St.

” By verses “ foisted in” for a particular purpose, and on which
certain definitions of the ancient Church have been founded, it is
probable that M. Bunsen means 1 John v. 7. Did M. Bunsen ever
read Bentley’s Letter on that subject ? (Correspondence, ii. 529.)
His general insinuation of ‘ supposititious verses” and “ dis-
honest readings,” and consequently of uncertainty in the Sacred
Text, is a repetition of the charge made by Antony Collins, in
another form, against the integrity of the text of the Gospels as
altered, ‘‘ tanquam ab Idiotis Evangelistis composita,” which was
refuted so triumphantly by the same writer, Dr. Bentley, ‘ On
Free-thinking,” p. 112. Cambridge, 1748.

184 On the Theory of Development

Hippolytus, and which he supposes him to deliver at
the time of the “Great Exhibition of the Industry
of all Nations,” in the character (it may be supposed)
of “Bishop of the Nations,” with which M. Bunsen
has invested him,—he makes St. Hippolytus say that —
the Second Epistle of St. Peter was not written by
that Apostle, and was not even known to the ancient
Church®. And, since the Author of that Epistle
claims to Je St. Peter himself ®, and since the Church
receives the Epistle as his, M. Bunsen, in so doing,
has ventured on an act of irreverence and injustice.
He has suborned St. Hippolytus as an accuser of the
Christian Church, and charges her through him with
reading, as Canonical Scripture, a work composed by
an Impostor’!

In the same imaginary harangue, M. Bunsen re-
presents St. Hippolytus as regarding with compla-
cency the theory of a recent German writer, affirm-
ing that the Book of Daniel was composed in the
times of Antiochus Epiphanes*, and that, therefore,
while it professes to be a Prophecy, it was fabricated
after the events which it pretends to predict; and

* iv,’ 33. * 2 Pet. i. 17; iii. 1.

* M. Bunsen says, iv. p. 84: “ The ancient Churches did not
know such a letter.” This is not true. Origen, a contemporary
of St. Hippolytus, says (in libr. Jesu Nave, Hom. 8), * Petrus
duabus Epistolarum personat tubis.” Other ancient authorities,
to the same effect, may be seen in the Appendix to the Writer’s
Lectures on the Canon of Scripture.

? iv. pp. 38, 39,

of Christian Doctrine. 185

thus he has brought St. Hippolytus from his grave to
connive at a revival of the exploded notion of the
infidel Porphyry, which has been treated as it de-
serves by St. Jerome’.

Other evidence of the manner in which St. Hippo-
lytus has been treated by M. Bunsen has been already
adduced, and more will be found in the following
pages *. The task of collecting it has been a painful
one. But respect for Hippolytus and the Truth re-
quired that it should not be declined.

Whether St. Hippolytus held the doctrine of the
Personality of the Holy Spirit, and acknowledged
the three Divine Persons of the Blessed Trinity, is a
question which has been already examined *. Proofs
have already been brought to show his doctrine in
these respects °.

* St. Jerome (Preefat. in Daniel.). Contra Prophetam Danielem
scripsit Porphyrius, nolens eum ab ipso cujus inscriptus est no-
mine esse compositum, sed a quodam qui temporibus Antiochi qui
appellatus est Epiphanes fuerit in Judea, et non tam Danielem
ventura dixisse, quam narrdsse preterita. See also in cap. IV.
and cap. XI. Hee ideo prolixius exposui ut Porphyrii ostendam
calumniam qui heec omnia ignoravit, aut nescire se finxit.

* Especially in the Notes in the latter portion of this Volume.

5 Above, pp. 174—177.

° How different from M. Bunsen’s judgment concerning the
theology of St. Hippolytus is that of another German Theologian
who had examined his works with care. ‘ Castigatissimé loquitur
sanctus Hippolytus de mysterio Sanctissime T'rinitatis apertéque
declarat fidem circa unitatem Nature et distinctionem Persona-
tum....Sané nemo posset hisce temporibus magis accuraté
loqui de Mysterio Trinitatis. . . . Pari praecisione loquitur sanc-

186 On the Theory of Development

With regard to Dr. Newman’s allegation, that the
Eternal Generation of the Son is not taught by Hip-
polytus, this has been fully discussed in another place,
and it would be superfluous to say more on that sub-
ject here’. To prove that Hippolytus was not a
Photinian is happily as needless °.

But for the sake of some readers it may be
desirable to offer some remarks on the Theory of
M. Bunsen and Dr. Newman as applied to St. Hip-
polytus, and to others of his age’.

1. First then, let it even be supposed, for argu-
ment’s sake, that St. Hippolytus and other ancient
Fathers of the Church had spoken ambiguously or
inadequately, or even erroneously, concerning certain
Articles of the Faith, now received by the Church,
and embodied in her Creeds.

tus ille Episcopus de Divinitate ac consubstantialitate Verbi.” P.
Gottf. Lumper, Histor. Theol. Critica, viii, 123—131. It may
here be observed also, that the venerable President of St. Mary
Magdalene College, Oxford, Dr. Routh, has made choice of the
Homily of St. Hippolytus against Noetus for a sound Exposition
of the Catholic doctrine concerning the Nature of Christ. Script.
Eccl. Opuscula, Pref. iii, Oxon. 1832.

” Letters to M. Gondon, Letter viii. pp. 210—214, ed. 3. See
also below, Notes to Pt. II. near the end.

* See above, p. 180, note.

* I call it the theory of both, for though the developing Autho-
rity is different in the two systems, yet each asserts the principle
of Development. ;

of Christian Doctrine. 187

It would not therefore follow that the Christian
Faith did not exist, or did not exist in perfect sym-
metry and fulness, in their age; or that they imagined
this to be the case; or that they did not acknow-
ledge that Faith, and acknowledge it as complete ;
or that a single iota has been added to it since their
age.

For (2) let it be remembered that the ScripTuREs
of the Otp and New Testament existed in their
time.

3. St. Hippolytus, and the other Catholic Fathers
acknowledged the Holy Scriprures to be Divinely
inspired, and to be the sole and all-sufficient Rule
of the Christian Faith. They acknowledged and
affirmed, that the true Faith, whole and complete, is
contained in those Scriptures. Nothing can be more
explicit than the testimony of St. Hippolytus, and of
his master St. Irenzeus, and of other ancient Fathers
to this effect '°.

© See, for example, S. Hippol. c. Noet. § 9. fs @eds, dv odx
GANoOev ervyryvickoper, 7) ex TOV dylwv ypaddv... door
GeoréBevav doxeivy BovrdyeOa odk GAAODEV doKyjoopev 7 ex THY
Aoylwy tod Ocod. “Oca roivwy knpicoovow ai Oetar ypadai,
apev, kat doa SddoKxovew ériyvopev,... py Kat lav mpoai-
peowy pode car idiov vodv, pnd Braldpevoe ta td Tod Ocod
Siddpeva, GAN Sv tpdrov adris €BovdyOyn Sia trdv aylwv ypaddv
detEar, ovrws idwpev. See also S. Hippol. ap. Euseb. v. 28, con-
cerning heretics, ypadas Oelas pepadiovpyjKact ... Karadurdvres
Tas dyias TOD Oeod ypadas, yewmerplay érirndevovow 7 od murrevou-
ow ‘Ayip Ivetipare AAG Oar ras Gelas ypadds, kal eiow aarioror 7)
éavtovs tyotvrar wopwréepous Tov “Ayiov Ivevparos trapyew. The

188 On the Theory of Development

Next (4) let it not be forgotten that Articles of |
Faith are confessedly mysterious; and that a careful
consideration, collation, and comparison of various
texts of Holy Scripture is requisite for the avoidance
of error, and for the declaration of truth in perfect
plenitude and harmonious proportion ; and that such
consideration, collation, and comparison, is a work of
time.

statements of St. Irenzeus on this subject are also very forcible
and clear. See S. Iren. ii. 46, where be describes the doctrines
received by the true Christian as 60a gavepds kali dvappiBodrus ev
tats Oelats ypadats AéAexrat. See the whole of that eloquent
chapter, and particularly iii. 11, where he calls the written Gospel
gTvAov Kal ornptypa tHS “ExxAnoias. Other testimonies to the
same effect are the following :—

Scriptor Anon. ap. Euseb. v. 16, against the Montanist heresy,
Sedids pon 7 Sdgw tisly ericvyypadew 7} erdiardrres Oa TO TIS
Tov evayyeAiov Kawns SiabjKys Adyw, @ pyte TpocOeivar pyr
adeXety Suvarov. S. Athanas. c. Gentes, i. 1, adrapKets at
dylar Kal Oedrvevoto. ypadai mpos tis aAnbeias arayyediav.
Festal. Epist. 39, ev rovrows BiBAlous pdovov 7d THs cdoePeias
dwdacKadetov eiayyeAilerary pydels Tovrois éemiBadrdr€rw pyde TovTwv
adapécbw. S. Basil. de Fide, c. 2, pavepa exrtwots tictews
) GOereiv tu Tov yeypappévuor, 7 erecdyew Toy pi) yeypap-
pevov. So that Hooker had good cause to say, Eccl. Pol. ii. v.
4, “ To urge any thing upon the Church, requiring thereunto that
religious assent of Christian belief wherewith the words of the
Holy Prophets are received,—to urge any thing as part of that
supernatural and celestially revealed truth which God hath taught,
and not to show it in Scripture, this did the ancient Fathers ever-
more think unlawful, impious, execrable.” See also the authorities
quoted in the seasonable publication of the Christian Advocate,
The Rev. J. A. Frere, Cambridge, 1852, pp. 110—135,

of Christian Doctrine. 189

5. Let it be observed, that men are prone to
dwell on specific truths, to the neglect of others
equally important. In dealing with Holy Scripture,
they are wont to forget the Apostolic precept, to
compare Spiritual things with Spiritual; and are apt
to fix their eyes on particular texts of Scripture
detached from the context; and are often blind
to other passages of Scripture, which ought to be
viewed in juxtaposition with them; and thus they
disturb the balance and mar the proportion of faith.

6. The Catholic Fathers protest against this par-
tiality—and no one more forcibly than St. Hippo-
lytus*.

7. The tendency of the human mind is to be
driven by an excess of reaction from one error to
its opposite extreme. Thus in the primitive ages of
the Church, when Idolatry was yet dominant at
Rome, the fear of Polytheism tended to produce
Monarchianism, and so acted as an obstacle, in cer-
tain quarters, to the reception of the doctrine of the
Holy Trinity, misconceived to be Tritheism. This
fear of abandoning the doctrine of the Divine Unity
engendered Sabellianism on one side, and Photini-

* See, for example, c. Noetum, § 3, where he rebukes the
Noetians for quoting the Scriptures povdxwAa, i. e. piecemeal,
—single texts, broken off from the context,—and refutes their
false reasoning deduced {rom isolated texts, by reference to Scrip-
ture as a whole, dAoKAjpus, § 4. drdrav OedAjowor ravovpycerOat
mepixorrovat tas ypaddss 6AoKAynpws Se cirdtw. So Tertullian
ce, Praxean. c. 20: Tribus capitulis totum volunt Instrumentum
eedere. Proprium hoc est omnium heereticorum.

190 On the Theory of Development

anism on the other. So in later times, the dread of
Sabellianism drove some into Arianism, and Nestori-
anism begat Eutychianism.

8. Thus Heresies arose, and propagated one an-
other.

But, under the all-wise and overruling Provi-
dence of Almighty God, Heresies were made sub-
servient to the advancement of Truth. They excited
the vigilance of orthodox Christian Teachers, and
stimulated them to examine with greater diligence
what was the teaching of Hoty Scriprure in those
particular matters, which “ Heresy went about to
deprave.” Thus the True Faith was seen more
clearly, and was expressed more definitely; it was
embodied in Confessions, and stereotyped in the
Creeds of the Church ’.

* This has been admirably stated by the Fathers themselves.
e.g. Origen, Hom, ix.in Num. ‘Si doctrina ecclesiastica nullis
intrinsecus hzereticorum dogmatum assertionibus cingeretur, non
poterat tam clara et tam examinata videri fides nostra. Sed id-
circo doctrinam catholicam contradicentium obsidet oppugnatio
ut Fides nostra non otio torpescat sed exercitiis elimetur.” ‘* II-
lorum error nobis profuit,” says St. Ambrose, in De Incarn. i. 6.
So St. August. ili. 2056. ‘‘ Heretici abundant, et cceperunt
fluctuare corda fidelium ; jam tam necessitas facta est spirituali-
bus viris qui aliquid secundum Divinitatem Domini Nostri Jesu
Christi non solum legerant in Evangelio, sed intellexerant, ut
eontra arma Diaboli Christi arma proferrent.” Hence he says,
iv. p. 730, ‘‘ Ex heereticis asserta est Catholica.” See also, iii. 102.
2055; iv. 7380. 978; vii. 661; viii. 33. Hence, in the words
of the venerable Hooker, v. xlii., ‘though those contentions
(with hereticks) were cause of much evil, yet some good the

of Christian Doctrine. 191

But it must not be imagined, that the Truth was
made by being elucidated. No; not a single article
of it was so formed. It had ewisted, and had ex-
isted in its perfect plenitude, even from the begin-
ning, in the pages of Hoty Writ.

The process here described is similar to what
takes place in the World of Nature. The rays of
the Sun are often veiled from our sight by Clouds.
But the Sun is shining behind them. And, when
the clouds break and are dissolved, not a single new
ray of the sun is created ; but it is seen by us more
clearly, and then “ Nube solet pulsa clarior ire dies.”

So, when the clouds of Heresy were dispersed, no
new article of Faith was made; no new beam of
Divine Revelation radiated forth; but the winds of
Controversy had blown away the mists of Heresy,—
the Storm had cleared the sky and purified the air,
and the Orb of Truth was seen more clearly by the
eye of the Church, as that Orb had shone from the
first, in the firmament of Holy Writ.

9. The question now is—

How was this process of elucidation performed ?

By “the Universal Conscience ;” Or by a Pope ?

By neither.

Doubtless St. Hippolytus and the other Catholic
Fathers admitted and affirmed, that every one is
Church hath reaped by them, in that they occasioned the learned

and sound in faith to explain such things as Heresy went about
to deprave.”

192 On the Theory of Development

bound to exercise all the faculties which God has
given him. But they did not imagine that any one
might interpret Scripture as he pleased, or that what-
ever seems to be truth to any man, zs truth to him.
The “ Refutation of all Heresy” by St. Hippolytus
is a protest against such a notion as that.

Again, St. Hippolytus did not acknowledge the
existence of any “ developing authority ” inherent in
the Bishop of Rome, and as an apanage of that See.
If there had been such a power and privilege in that
Church in the third century, the Church of Christ
would have become Noetian. She would have de-
nied the proper personality of her Divine Head.
The struggle of St. Hippolytus against Zephyrinus
and Callistus, proves that in his view the Bishops
of Rome might become heretics, and must not be
followed when they fall into heresy. And the
Church Universal, by professing his doctrine as true,
and proscribing theirs as heretical, has pronounced
him to have been right.

How, then, was it to be determined, what the true
doctrine of Scripture is?

By the aid of sound Reason, disciplined and in-
formed by Learning, and exercised with caution, in-
dustry, and humility, and enlightened by Divine
Grace given to earnest prayer, and controlled and
regulated by the judgment and guidance of the
Church Universal, to whom Christ has promised His
Presence, and the Light of the Holy Spirit to guide
her into all truth.

of Christian Doctrine. 193

This was the doctrine of St. Hippolytus *, and the
other Catholic Fathers.

10. Whatever, therefore, has been received by the
Church Universal as the true Exposition of Scrip-
ture, that zs the true sense of Scripture. And the
true sense of Scripture,—that, and that alone, 2s
Scripture. And, since the Creeds have been so re-
ceived, we believe them to contain the True Faith
as propounded in Scripture. And since the Per-
sonality of the Holy Spirit and the Divine Trinity
in Unity are taught in the Creeds, we believe that
those doctrines are contained in Holy Scripture,—
and that they have been in Scripture from the begin-
ning. |

11. Therefore, even if it could be shown that St.
Hippolytus, or any other among the ancient Fathers
of the Church, had exaggerated a truth through fear
of its opposite error; or if, not being gifted with pre-
science, they did not guard their language against
possible misconstruction, in regard to some heresies
which did not arise in the Church till many years after
they were laid in their graves; or did not fully put
forth such transcendental truths as the eternal gene-
ration of the Son of God, before those truths had
been impugned,— What is all this to us? What is it
to the question before us? They received the Holy
Scriptures. They received them as the Rule of Faith.
They received therefore a// that is in the Scriptures.

* See above, pp. 88—91.

194 Theory of Development, &c.

They received all that the Church Universal, the
Body and Spouse of Christ—to whom He has com-
mitted the Scriptures, and whom He has commis-
sioned to guard and interpret them—could show to
be in those Scriptures. They received, therefore, by
implication, and by anticipation, the Three Creeds,
promulgated lawfully, and generally received by the
Church.

We have the Holy Scriptures; we have the bless-
ing of Catholic teaching, and enjoy the benefits
which Almighty God in His mercy has elicited from
Heresies, for the victorious vindication and clearer
manifestation of His Truth. We have the Creeds.
We do not see any new sun, or any single new ray
of the sun, in them. But by their means we see
the Orb of divine light shining more brightly. By
means ‘of the Creeds, the Church Universal,—acting
under the governance of her Divine Head, and under
the guidance of the Holy Spirit—has rendered a
greater service to the whole World than that which,
in that celebrated speech, the noblest orator of Anti-
quity * said had been effected by one of his decrees
for his own State. The Church, by means of the
Creeds, has made the dangers of Heresy, which from
time to time have hung over her, to pass away,—
like a cloud.

* Demosth. de Corona, c. 56. § 4, rotro 76 Wjdicpa Tov TéTE
™ Tove repiotdvta Kivdvvov mapeMOciv éroinoev, dorep véedos.

Longinus, de Sublim. ¢. 39.

CHAPTER XII.

APPEAL TO ST. HIPPOLYTUS ON THE PRESENT CLAIMS
OF THE ROMAN CHURCH TO SUPREMACY.

THE main question on which the controversy between
the Church of Rome and the other Churches of
Christendom hinges, is that of Papal Supremacy.
“ What is the point at issue,” says Cardinal Bellar-
mine, “ when we argue concerning the Primacy of
the Roman Pontiff?” “It is,” he replies, “the sum
of Christianity '.”

1. Among the arguments adduced by our Romanist
brethren, in behalf of the Papal claim to Supremacy,
none appears to be urged with greater frequency
or more confidence than that which they derive from
a well-known passage of St: [renzus’.

That great Bishop and Doctor of the Church, who
was the disciple of St. Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna,
employs, they say, the following words in his Treatise

on Heresy ;

* Bellarmin. de Pontifice, vol. i. p. 189, ed. 1615. De qua
re agitur cum de primatu Pontificis agitur? Brevissimé dicam,
De summa rei Christianitatis. ? S. Iren, iii. 3.

o.Z

196 Appeal to St. Hippolytus

He is describing “the Church of Rome, as founded
by the two most glorious Apostles, St. Peter and St.
Paul,” and he then says, “ Ad hance Ecclesiam, propter
potentiorem principalitatem, necesse est omnem con-
venire Lcclesiam—hoc est, eos qui sunt undique
fideles,—in qua semper ab his, qui sunt undique,
conservata est ea quze est ab Apostolis traditio *.”

Here, it is affirmed by Romanist Theologians, is a
declaration from St. Irenzeus, one of the most emi-
nent Bishops of the Church in the second century
after Christ, that every Church “ must conform to
the Church of Rome, on account of its more power-
ful principality.”

Therefore here is an acknowledgment, they say,
of her Supremacy; and an assertion that it is the
duty of all Christians and of all Churches, to submit
to the Church of Rome. And, since the Bishop of
Rome is the head of that Church, therefore all, they
affirm, are bound to pay dutiful homage - filial
obedience to him.

2. This passage, it will shortly be seen, may form
an introduction to an Appeal on this important ques-
tion to the authority of St. Hippolytus.

But more on this shortly. In the mean time, let
us examine the context and scope of the words of
St. Irenzeus.

He is arguing against Heretics. Having first re-
futed them by reference to Holy Scripture *, he next ®,

° S. Tren. iii. 3. ‘ ii, 2,

* As was usual with the primitive Catholic writers in his age.

on Loman Claims to Supremacy. 197

proceeds to encounter them by the testimony of
the Catholic Church.

3. How was this testimony to be obtained? “ It
would be very tedious®,” he tells them, to cite, as it
were, all the Churches of Christendom as witnesses.
He will therefore be content with one Church. His
argument is—ab und disce omnes. He will, we say,
be satisfied with one. And since he is writing in
the West, the Church, which he will select, shall be
a Western Church; it shall be the Church generally
acknowledged to have been planted by Apostolic
hands in the West—it shall be a Church founded
by the two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul—
one whose succession of Bishops was well authenti-
eated and generally known—the Cuurcu of Rome’.

St. Irenzeus then introduced the passage to which

Bp. Pearson, Dissert. i. cap. 3, says, “ab Episcoporum succes-
sione argumentari solebant secundi tertiique seculi Patres ad-
versus sui temporis Heereticos.”

* Valdé longum esset omnium Ecclesiarum enumerare succes-
siones.

” The reader may compare the very similar argument of a
contemporary of St. Irenzeus, Tertullian, De Przescr. Heereticor.
ce. 21. Constat omnem doctrinam que cum illis Ecclestis Apos-
tolicis matricibus et originalibus fidei conspirat veritati deputan-
dam. C. 36: Percurre Ecclesias Apostolicas apud quas ipse
adhue cathedre Apostolorum suis locis president, apud quas
authenticz literee eorum recitantur, sonantes vocem et repreesen-
tantes faciem uniuscujusque.

It is observable that Tertullian dwells on nearness of time to
the Apostles, as well as identity of place, as a ground for this

198 Appeal to St. Hippolytus

we have already adverted. Unhappily that passage
is known to ws only through the medium of an old
Latin Translation. The original Greek words of
Jrenzus are lost. The Latin version of them is as
follows :—

“Ad hance Kcclesiam (se. Romanam), propter
potentiorem principalitatem, necesse est omnem con-
venire Keclesiam, hoe est, eos qui sunt undique
fideles, in qua semper ab his, qui sunt undique, con-
servata est ea quze est ab Apostolis traditio.”

4. The divines of the Church of Rome interpret
these words to mean, that it “is necessary for every
Church to conform to this Church, 7. e. to the Chureh
of Rome;” and thus they deduce a moral obligation

on all men to submit to her.
Are these inferences justified by the words of

Irenzeus 4
It does not appear that they are.

For (1) they are at variance with the drift of the

appeal, so that the appeal would lose its force in course of time,
and would ultimately be inapplicable, as now.

** Proxima est tibi Achaia? Habes Corinthum; Si potes in
Asiam tendere, habes Ephesum.”

What, we may ask, would the Roman Church say to avieli
an appeal now to the Churches of Ephesus and Corinth, whom
she charges with heresy and schism? But if the appeal to Rome
is valid, so is that to Ephesus and Corinth.

‘Si autem Italie adjaces, habes Romam, unde nobis quoque

auctoritas preesto est.”

on Roman Claims to Supremacy. 199

argument. St. Irenzeus is refuting Heretics, by an
appeal to the witness of the Church Universal. He
has selected one Church as an exponent of that testi-
mony. The Church so selected is the Church of
Rome. His argument leads him to add that the
selection is a fair one; and that, in appealing to one
Church, the Church of Rome, he has virtually col-
lected the witness of all.

And how does he show this? By reminding
them, that the Church of Rome had been founded
by the two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul,
whom they knew to have suffered at Rome only
about a century before, and from whom they could
trace the succession of Bishops, whose names were
well known to them, and which he himself enume-
rates from the first Bishop of Rome, Linus, to whose
charge (he says) those two blessed Apostles com-
mitted the Roman Church, down to the then pre-
siding Bishop of Rome, the twelfth in order,
Kleutherus. 3

2. What then would he next say? What does he
say in the words “ad hance Ecclesiam necesse est
omnem convenire Ecclesiam hoc est omnes qui sunt
undique fideles ? ”

Not, that every one, then and for ever after, must
submit to the Church of Rome. No. Jf that had
been true, then he would never have said, that, “ de-
cause it would be tedious to appeal to all Churches,”
he would therefore appeal to ove Chureh—the
Church of Rome. Such a statement would have

200 Appeal to St. Hippolytus

been absurd, 7f Rome had been supreme over all
Churches, and if a// Churches were bound to conform
to her.

No one would say, It would be a tedious process to
ascertain the opinions of a// the Peers of the Realm—
we will therefore appeal to the Crown. What, then,
do his words mean? They signify this: That, on
account of the greater antiquity of Rome—for such is
the meaning of the words “ potentior principalitas *”
—it may be taken for granted, that every Church
coincides with Rome, and is represented by her;
that is, all believers, who exist in all places’, agree
with her; or, in other words, every Church (he says)
in which the tradition from the Apostles has been
preserved by those who exist every where, 2. e. by
true Catholics, as opposed to heretics, who existed
only in particular places. Hence, then, he means to

* Principalitas, in the old Latin version of Irenzeus (as Stieren
has shown), is used in the same sense as in Tertullian, for priority
of time (see S. Iren. v. 14. v. 21), and is opposed to posterioritas.
The argument may be illustrated by Tertullian’s reference (see
above, p. 197, note) to Ecclesiz originales et matrices. The original
words used by Irenzeus were probably ixaywrépay dpyaiéryra. In
this same chapter the Latin Translator has rendered ixavwrary
by potentissima. (The Church of Rome was the only Church in
the West that was known to have been founded by Apostles. It
had therefore a potentior principalitas, ‘a more august primitive-
ness.”

* The word wndique, as is well observed by Thiersch on this
passage, is used in this old Latin Version of Irenzus for
ubique.

on Roman Claims to Supremacy. 201

say, his reference to Rome is a just one; and by
appealing to that Church he has appealed to all
Churches, whose testimony may be supposed to be
embodied and involved in hers.

3. Let it be observed, further, that St. Irenzeus, so
far from countenancing in this passage the doctrine
of Papal Supremacy, as taught by Romish Divines,
does in fact, by implication, overthrow the founda-
tion on which they make it rest.

They base that doctrine on the words of our
Blessed Lord to St. Peter’; whom they affirm to be
the Rock on which the Church is built. And they
then proceed to say, that the Bishop of Rome is the
Rock of the Church, by virtue of his succession to
St. Peter.

This is their assertion.

But what is the language of St. Irenzeus ?

He refers to the Church of Rome, as founded
by the ¢wo most glorious Apostles, St. Peter and St.
Paul. He appeals to the Bishop of Rome as suc-
ceeding Linus, who, he says, was placed in that see
by the same two Apostles. And thus he shows, in
a striking manner, that he knew nothing of the
Romish theory which claims infallibility and supre-
macy for St. Peter alone, as Head of the Church,
and also claims the same prerogatives for the Bishops
of Rome, as successors of St. Peter.

* Matth. xvi. 18, “ On this Rock I will build My Church.”

202 Appeal to St. Hippolytus

Such then appears to be the true meaning of the
words of St. Irenzeus.

4. In confirmation of this interpretation, let us
revert to the fact, that the words quoted by our
Romanist brethren as from St. Ireneus are xot his
own words, but are only a Latin Version of them.

This is necessary to be borne in mind.

Since this Old Latin Version isa literal one (as
is evident by comparison of it with the Greek in
those passages where the Greek has been preserved),
it is probable, and almost certain, that where we now
read in the Latin “ necesse est,” St. Irenseus wrote
avaykn.

The word dvdy«n, it is well known, often implies
a reasonable inference,—not a moral obligation.
Such an use is common to all Greek Writers in
prose and verse; odd} y dvdykn—Taic éoT ap-
dyen—in the Greek dramatic writers, and in the
Dialogues of Plato, signify simply, “ By all means,”
or, “it follows, of course, that it is so, or will be so.”
The same is the case in Ecclesiastical Writers. Thus
when Theodoret says*, av@parous avdyxn tpoorratew
dvras, he certainly does not intend to assert that it
is a moral duty for a man to err—no; but that
“humanum est errare,” and that no one is free from
error. When St. Chrysostom says *, dvdyxn Tov omi-

° Eccl. Hist. iv. 5.
* These words are quoted from St. Chrysostom in “ Herz’s
Select Offices of Private Devorion,” published by the “Society

on Roman Claims to Supremacy. 203

hovvra Oe kpelrrova yevéc Oat Oavdrov, Kai maans diapOopas,
he does not mean to affirm that it is a moral duty for
a man who converses with God to conquer Death
and Destruction. This would be a very presump-
tuous speech. But he means, that a man who holds
habitual intercourse with God by prayer and medi-
tation, does by natural consequence become superior
to Dissolution. So again, when St. Hippolytus says’,
in his description of the lower world, ¢w7ds toivuv év
TOUT® TO Yopio 2) KaTaNdpTrovTOs, avadyKN oKOTOS Sunve-
Kas Tuyyave, he certainly cannot mean to assert any
moral necessity for darkness, but, that, light not
being admitted, darkness is the natural result °.

Such then is the signification of the word dvayxn,
which Irenzeus appears to have used, and which is
represented by necesse est in the passage before us.
And we may observe, in confirmation of what has
now been said on that point, that the word davay«n is
used in this sense by Plato in his Timeus, and is
translated “ necesse est” by Cicero’.

for Promoting Christian Knowledge,” and form the appropriate
motto of that admirable Manual.

* De Universo, p. 220, ed. Fabr.

*° Several examples of a similar use of dvdyxn may be seen in
the fragment of Maximus, who appears to have been contempo-
rary with St. Irenzeus, in Routh’s Relique, i, p. 432.

" The words of Plato are*, rov vod Kal érurtipyns epacriv
avayKyn Tas THs Eudpovos dices airias mpwras peradudxew, which
Cicero renders, “ Illum qui intelligentize sapientiazeque se amato-

* Plato Timeeus, 46. D. vol. vii. p. 32. Stallbaum, Leips. 1824, ep. Cicero,
vii. p. 942, ed. Ernesti, Oxon. 1810,

204 Appeal to St. Hippolytus

This, then, appears to be evident, that St. Irenzeus
did not mean to affirm any moral obligation con-
straining all men to submit to the Church of Rome.

He knew the Church of Rome well. He knew
her to have been founded in the preceding century
by St. Peter and St. Paul; he knew that her first
Bishop was placed there by them. He knew her to
be an orthodox Church. But he does not state it to
be the duty of any other Church to submit to her,
even as she then was. Much less, not knowing, as
he could not know, what she would Jecome in future
ages, does he lay upon all Churches in coming gene-
rations the responsibility of accommodating them-
selves to her opinions, whatever they might be. And
yet this is the doctrine which the Divines of Rome
now impute to the great Bishop of Lyons, and which
they derive from this passage, and which they would
make to pass current in the world under his venerable
name!

5. Let us now advance a step further.

We (as was before observed) do not possess the
original Greek of St. Irenzeus, in this passage. It is
lost. We have only the old Latin Version of it,

But the original Greek was extant in the third
century; it was in the hands of St. Hiprotytus. He
was a Scholar of St. Irenzeus, and has made frequent

rem profitetur necesse est intelligentis sapientisque nature primas
causas conquirere.”’

on Roman Claims to Supremacy. 205

use of that Original in the Treatise on Heresy be-
fore us.

St. Hippolytus had this passage before him in
the original Greek. He had the advantage of per-
sonal intercourse with St. Irenzeus; he was his
pupil, had heard his lectures, and gave an abstract
of them to the world. He was formed in his school.

How then did St. Hippolytus understand this
passage of St. Irenzeus? How did he show that he
understood it, by his own practice ?

This becomes an interesting topic, not merely as
bearing on the passage itself, but as of far more ex-
tensive import. For it aids us in deciding aright
a question on which the whole controversy turns
between the Church of Rome and the other Churches
of Christendom ; viz.—

1. Whether the claim put forth by the Bishop
of Rome to Spiritual Supremacy is an equitable
claim? Was it acknowledged as such by the pri-
mitive Church ? ate

2. Whether the Papal claim to Infallibility is a
just claim or not? Was it admitted—was it even
known—in primitive times ?

An answer to these enquiries is contained in the
newly-discovered Volume before us.

1. It exhibits the condition of the Church of
Rome, and displays the conduct and teaching of
two Bishops of Rome in succession, Zephyrinus and
Callistus, in the writer’s own age, the beginning of
the third century, that is, just after the decease of

206 Appeal to St. Hippolytus

St. Irenzeus, not more than a hundred years after
the death of the last surviving Apostle.

The person who wrote this history, was a scholar
of St. Ireneus; he was a Suffragan Bishop of the
Roman Church; one who passed his life at or near
Rome; one who was honoured in his day, and has
ever since been honoured, as among the most emi-
nent Teachers of the Church; one, whom the Church
of Rome herself now venerates as a Martyr, and com-
memorates as a Saint, in her Breviary; one, whose
Statue she has received with honourable marks of
distinction within the doors of the Vatican, and
has placed in the Pontifical Library, where it now is
—Sr. Hippo.ytus.

2. What then, let us enquire, is Azs testimony
with respect to the Bishop of Rome? Did he regard
him as Supreme Head of the Church Universal 4
Did he think it the duty of all men, did he think
it his own duty, to submit to him as such? Did
he venerate him as infallible? Does he give any
intimation that the Bishops of Rome were looked
upon as Supreme or Infallible by others, or even
by themselves? Had the Bishops of Rome put
forth any claims to Supremacy or Infallibility in that
age ¢ ,

3. In replying to these questions, let us make all
such allowances as Charity suggests. Let us take
into consideration the circumstances in which the
two successive Bishops of Rome, Zephyrinus and
Callistus, were placed. They lived in a heathen

on Roman Claims to Supremacy. 207

city. The clergy and laity of the Roman Church do
not appear to have been gifted with endowments
of Learning*®. The Latin Church had few eminent
Teachers at that time. In controverted questions
of Theology, they had not the benefit of clear dog-
matic decisions, such as we possess in the Creeds.
From their errors we may learn to appreciate our
own blessings. They were liable to be swayed by
the eager partisanship of heretical teachers, resort-
ing to Rome from Asia’, and bringing with them
the restless spirit and dialectic shrewdness of the
Kast’, and bearing down upon them with an array
of Scriptural texts torn from their context, and not
interpreted by reference to the general scope of
Scripture, but by subtle syllogistic processes, de-
rived from the schools of human Philosophy, and
inapplicable to the mysteries of Faith. The Bishops

* Bp. Pearson, Diss. 1. c. 13, contrasts the Roman Christians
of that age with the Hasterns in that respect, *‘ ipsi alumni in ea
urbe nati et educati Christiani (i.e. Romani) qui eo tempore
- propter fidem celebres, propter doctrinam aut literarum scientiam
non adeo preclarum testimonium nacti sunt.”

® Simon Magus, Valentinus, Marcion, Praxeas, and Sabellius,
all came in person to Rome.

* What Juvenal says of Greek and Asiatic Vices, Philosophical
Systems and Superstitions finding their way to Rome and flowing
into it as a common reservoir,

* Jam pridem Syrus in Tiberim defluxit Orontes”—iii. 62, &c.

is remarkably true of all heresies discharging their streams from
the same countries into the same basin. Indeed, his picture of
Rome in those respects is very descriptive of her religious condi-
tion,

208 Appeal to St. Hippolytus

of Rome, in that age, were not a match for such
disputants. They had also a dread—a reasonable
one—of Polytheism. The City in which they dwelt
was crowded with false deities. Wherever they
turned their eyes, they witnessed the vicious and
debasing effects of Idolatry. They heard the ter-
rible denunciations sounding in Scripture against
it. The Unity of the True God must be maintained
at any rate against the manifold pretensions of the
Roman Pantheon. Hence there naturally existed at
Rome a predisposition to what is commonly called
the Monarchian System of Theology.

And here let us remark, that, 7f the Z7'rinitarian
doctrine is not ¢rue, its existence in the primitive
Church is wnaccountable. All antecedent probability
was against it. The doctrine of Three Persons, each
of them Divine, could never have risen spontaneously
in a Church whose prevailing spirit was a dread of
Polytheism*. There was much in the Church at
that time to stifle the doctrine of the Trinity. No-
thing to produce it. The predisposition to Monarchi-
anism showed itself in two opposite forms. -One
was the heresy of Theodotus and Artemon *, which

* The common question with which the Sabellians accosted the
orthodox, especially of the simpler sort, when they met them
was, ® ovrou, eva Oedv exomev 7) Tpeis Oeovs; Well, my friends, have
we one God or three? Epiphan. Heeres. 62, a question which
supplies evidence of what the faith of the Church was, and gives
an answer to M. Bunsen’s allegation that the doctrine of the
Divine Personality of the Holy Spirit was not developed because
St. Hippolytus was only accused of being a Ditheist. (p. 297.)

* On the doctrine of Theodotus, see Philosophumena, p. 257.

on Roman Claims to Supremacy. 209

denied the Divinity of Christ; the other, the heresy
of Noetus, which did not acknowledge the Son. of
God to be the Word‘, and denied the distinct
proper Personality of the Son, and affirmed that
the Son is the same as the Father, under a different
name’.

4. Between this Scylla and Charybdis of two
Heresies the Church steered her course. To adopt
another illustration, of a Scriptural character, sup-
plied by an ancient writer, who combated both
these heresies, the Blessed Son of God was crucified
afresh between two Malefactors®. The one acknow-
ledged Him to be Man, but would not worship Him as

Epiphan, c. Heres. xxxiv., sive liv. p. 462, ed. Petavii, Colon.
1682,

* The Noetian argument was, that it was a new thing to call
the Son the Word, gévov por pépets, Adyov N€éywy vidv, S. Hippol.
c. Noet. xv. According to the Noetian and Sabellian theology,
the man Jesus became the Son of God by communication of the
Word, which it did not regard as a Person, but as a property of
the Divine Nature. See Marcellus ap. Euseb. de Eccl. Th. ii.
ce. 8. To which St. Hippolytus replies from the Apocalypse,
xix. 11, ‘‘ that the Word of God is He Who was from the begin-
ning, and has now been sent into the World.”—c. Noet. xv. rdv
Adyov rod @cod rodrov dvra ax dpyins Kal viv drecradpévor.

* On the Heresy of Noetus, see Epiphanius, xxxvii. sive lvii.
p- 479. The Article of Epiphanius on Noetus is derived in a
great measure from the Homily of St. Hippolytus (ed. Fabr. ii.
5—20), but without any mention of his name. Epiphanius, p.
481, contrasts the heresy of Noetus with that of Theodotus, and
shows that they owed their origin to similar causes.

* Novatian de Trin. § 30.

210 - Appeal to St. Hippolytus

God.; the other confessed Him to be God and Man,
but would not acknowledge His Divine Personality.

5. Each of these Heresies was coupled with a Truth ;
each struggled against the other, by means of the
Truth it possessed. The Artemonite rightly main-
tained against the Noetian, that the Son is not the
Father; the Noetian rightly affirmed against the
Artemonite, that the Son is God. Between the
Artemonite and the Noetian, the Church held her
place. She retained the truth, and rejected the
error, of each. She affirmed that the Son is God, as
well as Man; and that the Son, Who is God, is a
distinct Person from God the Father.

This was the position of the Church; this was
the doctrine of St. H1irpotyrtus.

6. Now, it does not appear that any Roman Bishop
was betrayed into the opinion, which taught hereti-
eally, that Christ is a mere man, in whom the God-
head dwelt in an eminent degree.

7. But it is too clear from the recital contained in
the Ninth Book of the recently-discovered Treatise
on Heresy, that two Bishops of Rome in succession,
Zephyrinus and Callistus, fell into the opposite heresy
—that of Noetus.

It is not necessary to dwell on the motives of this
apostasy, or on the practices with which it was ae-
companied, or on the results by which it was fol-
lowed. But it zs requisite to state the fact. These
two Bishops of Rome lapsed into heresy, in a primary
article of the Christian Faith, and in opposition to

on Roman Claims to Supremacy 211

.
e

the exhortations of Orthodox Teachers. They stre-
nuously maintained that heresy, and propagated it
by their official authority, as Bishops of Rome’.

_ They tenaciously maintained, and they promul-
gated publicly, a doctrine, which the Church of Rome
herself, with all other Churches of Christendom, now
declares to be heretical.

They also denounced those who held the true
faith. Zephyrinus and Callistus charged St. Hippo-
lytus with Heresy.

8. Hence it is apparent, that the Bishops of Rome
may err, and have erred,—they may err and have
erred, as Bishops of Rome—in matters of Faith.

” And yet, as has been shown above, Zephyrinus and Callistus
are canonized as Martyrs in the Breviartum Romanum (see
p- 114). How painful must it be to a religious mind to discover
that those whom it has been taught to venerate and invoke as
Saints, were in fact Heretics, and that it has been deceived by fables
inserted in the public Liturgy of the Church. What a shock
must such a discovery give to its faith! How can it place any
confidence in other records of the Breviary, or join with hearti-
ness in the prayers tendered there for its use? Thus Superstition
leads to Scepticism, and pious frauds (as they are sometimes
called) prepare the way for Infidelity. And yet one of the so-
called Reforms for which the Church of Rome is now contending
is to make all Churches (even those of France) surrender their
own Liturgies, and conform to the Roman Breviary! How
much reason for thankfulness have the members of the Church
of England, not only for what the Anglican Liturgy supplies,
but also for what (as compared with some other Liturgies) it
does not contain !

p 2

212 Appeal to St. Hippolytus

Therefore the Bishop of Rome is not Infallible.

9. Next with regard to Supremacy.

When Zephyrinus and Callistus fell into heresy,
in the beginning of the third century, and when they
endeavoured to disseminate their false doctrine, they
were resisted by St. Hippolytus.

He does not appear to have imagined that he was
bound to conform to them in their doctrine. On
the contrary, he stood forth boldly and. rebuked
them. He has thus given a practical reply to the
question, which has been raised concerning the sense
of St. Irenzeus, his master, in the passage recited
above. Hippolytus certainly had never learnt that
every Church, and every Christian, must submit to
the Bishop of Rome.

Let it not be said, that he merely resisted Zephy-
rinus and Callistus from a transient impulse of passion,
and swayed by the feelings of a moment. His resist- .
ance was deliberate; it was a resistance of years.
Not only when Zephyrinus and Callistus were alive,
did he think it his duty to contendyagainst them and
their heresy; but when they were in their graves, he
sate down and committed to writing the History of
their Heresy, and of his own opposition to it. And
he published that History to the World, in order that
none might be deluded by the false doctrine which
those Roman Bishops had propagated, and which
was disseminated after their death by some who had
been deceived by them.

on Ltoman Claims to Supremacy. 213

He published that History after the death of
Callistus, and probably in the time of his successor
Urbanus. He affirms that he wrote his Treatise in
the discharge of his duty as a Bishop of the Church °.
He therefore remained a Bishop—a Roman Suffra-
gan,—although he had resisted two Bishops of Rome.
As we know from Prudentius and others, he was
Bishop of Portus even to his death. Nothing occurs
in the whole course of the Ten Books to suggest
any surmise that he had encountered any Ecclesias-
tical censure, on the ground of his having opposed
Zephyrinus and Callistus; or that, by this publica-
tion, he contravened the just authority of the Bishop
of Rome at the time when he published his work.
Nothing exists in it to excite any suspicion, that,
however the Church of Rome might regret the facts
which his treatise related, she made any remonstrance
against the publication, or regarded it as a breach of |
order and discipline. On the contrary, he promises
himself the gratitude of the world for it®. And he
seems to have not been disappointed. The venera-
tion in. which his, memory was held at Rome indi-
cates this.

Such was the conduct of St. Hippolytus. Such is
his commentary—the commentary of his life—on
the teaching of his master, Irenzeus, concerning the
Church of Rome.

* See above, p. 21; Lib. i. p. 3.
* See Lib. i. p. 3, and Lib. ix. p. 309.

214 Appeal to St. Hippolytus

10. It may be hoped that our Romanist brethren
will no longer urge against us the authority of St.
Ireneus. We may rather trust that they will ex-
amine the teaching of St. Irenzeus, as ‘illustrated by
the acts of St. Hippolytus. ;

It does not appear from the narrative before us,
that the Bishops of Rome themselves, in the third cen-
tury, entertained any idea that they were Supreme
Heads of the Church, or that Christians and Churches
were bound to submit to them as such.

St. Hippolytus was indeed charged by Zephyrinus
and Callistus with being a Ditheist, because he would
not say with them that the Father and the Son are
one Divine Being under two different names. But
we can discover no intimation that they put forth
any claim to Supremacy, and much less to Infalli-
bility ', or that he was accused of heresy as one who
resisted the Divine Head of the Church, and rebelled
against the Vicegerent of Christ on earth, because
he opposed the Bishop of Rome.

Let not therefore the Divines of Rome censure
us as innovators, because we do not acknowledge
the Bishop of Rome as Supreme Head of the
Church.

We tread in the ancient paths, which we should
be deserting for new and devious ways, if we ad-

* Indeed, as we have seen above (p. 121) from the “ Liber
Diurnus ” of the Popes themselves, they had no notion that they
were infallible, in the eighth century.

on Roman Claims to Supremacy. 215

mitted claims—claims urged as of Divine Right and
in the name of Christ—but unknown to the primi-
tive Church.

11. But, on the other hand, the Bishops of Rome,
by putting forth such claims in Christ’s name, and
by endeavouring to enforce those claims on all men
and on all Churches, as terms of Churech-communion,
are chargeable with innovation,—and with such an
innovation as is contrary to Christian Charity, and
has rent the Church asunder, and is therefore of
such a nature, that no gifts or graces can compensate
for it’.

12. If the claims which are put forth by the Bi-
shops of Rome to Infallibility and Universal Supre-
macy are not just, then there is no alternative, they
are nothing short of Blasphemy. For they are claims
to participation in the attributes of God Himself.
And if He does not authorize these claims, they are
usurpations of His Divine prerogatives. They there-
fore who abet those claims are fighting against Him.
They are defying Him, Who “is a jealous God, and
will not give His honour to another,” and Who is “a
consuming fire’.”. May they therefore take heed in
time, lest they incur His malediction! And since
they affirm that their system of Christianity rests on
the basis of Papal Supremacy, may they be led to
consider whether, instead of being founded on a Rock,

2 1 Cor. xiii. 1—3. * Exod. xx. 5. Heb. xii, 29,

216 Appeal to St. Hippolytus

they are not building on the Sand? Are they not
tempting others to do so? Are they not beguiling
them to place their hopes on a false foundation, and
so leading them on to everlasting destruction? If
this is so, then their house will fall, and “great will
be the fall thereof *.”

18. St. Hippolytus, Bishop of Portus, resisted the
errors of the Bishops of Rome. His resistance to
error, and maintenance of the truth, appear to have
been signally blessed by the Divine Head of the
Church.

In due time, the Heresy, patronized by Zephyri-
nus and Callistus, was suppressed. In due time, the
Truth, maintained by St. Hippolytus, prevailed at
Rome. His memory was blessed,—and so much the
more, we may believe, because he, a Suffragan
of Rome, had rescued the Roman Church from a
deadly Heresy, patronized by two Roman Bishops;
and because, in defiance of their threats, he held
firmly the true faith, though reviled by them as a
heretic. .

A marble Statue was erected in his honour’;

* Matth. vii. 27.

5 Cardinal Mai thus speaks of St. Hippolytus and his Statue
(Scriptorum Veterum Nova Collectio Vatican. Rom. 1825). Pro-
leg. p. xxxv. “ Hippolyti commentariorum in Danielis Vatici-
nium, in Vaticanis codicibus pars adhuc mediocris erat inedita
quam libenter propter tanti Doctoris et Martyris reverentiam
luce impertivi. Statuam ejus cum paschali cyclo operumque

on Roman Claims to Supremacy. 217

having been buried for many centuries, it was
brought to light three hundred years ago, and was
restored by the reverent care of a Cardinal and a
Pope. And the opponent of two Bishops of Rome,
the Historian of their Heresy, the deliverer of the
Church of Rome from the error of her own two
Chief Pastors, Zephyrinus and Callistus, is now re-
vered by Prelates, Cardinals, and Pontiffs, and _ sits
enshrined in the Vatican.

14. In this newly-discovered Volume, a solemn cau-
tion has been given to the Church, and to the world,
at this critical juncture, fraught with great results.
We need not hesitate to say, that the warning is
from Heaven. The hand of God Himself is visible
in it. Three centuries ago the Statue, to which we
have referred, was dug up near Rome; it bore no
name; but it had a Greek inscription engraven upon
it, containing the titles of an Author’s Works. By
a comparison of these titles with notices in ancient
Writers, this Statue was recognized to be a Statue
of St. Hippo.ytus, and as such, it was received into
the Papal Library at Rome. It was restored to its
pristine form under the auspices of that Pope, Pius
the Fourth, who promulgated the Trent Creed, in
which the Doctrine of Papal Supremacy is set forth

Catalogo inscripto prope Urbem in agro Verano Marcelli Card.
Cervini auspiciis effossam, deinde a Pio IV. in Bibliotheca Vati-
cana, ubi adhuc asservatur, positam, in fronte libri mei incidendam
curavi.”

218 _ Appeal to St. Hippolytus

as an Article of Faith. Three hundred years passed
away. And now in our own age,—another Discovery
has been made—in a very different quarter. An
ancient Manuscript has been brought to light, from a
monastic cloister of Mount Athos. On examination,
it is found to state that its Author wrote a Work
bearing one of the titles mentioned on the Statue—
a Work “On the Universe.” Thus the disinterred
Statue, now in the Papal Library of the Vatican,
furnished the first clue for the discovery of the
Author of the MS. found three centuries afterwards
in the cloistral Library of Mount Athos. Other
evidences have accrued; and it appears to be now
established, that the Author of the Treatise is Sr.
HIpPoLyTus.

The Treatise was printed before this evidence was
produced. The book bore the name of Origen.
May it not be said, that it owed its preservation in
some degree to these circumstances? We know too
well, that many passages of the ancient Fathers have
been placed in the Roman Index, and proscribed by
the Roman Church, as contravening the tenets of
Rome. Is it not therefore probable, that this Treatise
of St. Hippolytus might have been stifled, if it had
been known to those who direct the affairs of the
RomanCensorship*? Hippolytus was concealed under

° The argument of the Jesuit writer, James Gretser, in his
ingenious treatise ‘‘on the Right of prohibiting Books,” Ingold-
stadt, 1603, affords a remarkable illustration of these statements.

on Roman Claims to Supremacy. 219

the name of Origen. The Roman Narrative escaped
notice from its position in the Ninth Book. And
who would expect to find a History of the Roman
Church, in a work on Heathen Philosophy ?

When, also, we consider the eight long years,
during which, after its discovery, this Manuscript
reposed quietly, in one of the greatest Cities of the
World, before it was printed, are we presumptuous
in saying that it had a second providential deliver-
ance, and that it was again restored, almost by a
miracle, from the dead, when it first saw the light in
England ¢

15. Great reason have all persons, of whatever
nation, for gratitude to Almighty God, that He has

He pleads that the Pope in prohibiting or expurgating any
works whatever, does an act of mercy, ‘ opus misericordiz,” to
the writer; and that ali Catholic Writers, and consequently the
Ancient Fathers, as dutiful children of the Church, owe filial
reverence to the Bishop of Rome, and that, by anticipation, they
submitted all their writings to his judgment, and that they would
feel greatly obliged to him for undertaking the labour of correct-
ing their works. His words are as follows: “ Adjeci, hunc in
Ecclesia Catholicé esse morem ut omnes Scriptores Catholici pro
animi sui modestia et submissione, ac in Ecclesiam summumque
Pontificem reverentia, scripta sua omnia subjiciant Ecclesiz vel
summo Pontifici vel expressé vel tacité, ita ut velint corrigi, sive
vivant adhuc, sive post mortem. Quo posito, quis tam stupidus
est, qui non videat Ecclesiam aut summum Pontificem dum /ilio-
rum suorum lucubrationes revidet, et ubi opus est, corrigit, gratum
ipsis auctoribus prestare obsequium, et utilem operam posteritati,
atque adeo tune exhibere filiis suis opus misericordie ?”’

220 Appeal to St. Hippolytus

thus watched over the work of His faithful soldier
and servant, the blessed Martyr, Hippolytus.

We of the Church of England may recognize in
this Treatise a Catholic and Apostolic, yes, and a
Roman, Vindication, of our own Reformation. Here
a Roman Bishop, Saint and Martyr, supplies us with
a defence of our own religious position with respect
to Rome. In his “ Refutation of all Heresies,” we
see a practical Refutation of that great Heresy of
our own day—the Heresy, which either directly or
indirectly, is at the root of many prevalent Heresies
—a Refutation of the Heresy of Papal Supremacy,
and of Papal Infallibility.

Whenever then we are charged by Romish Divines
with Heresy, and Schism, for not acknowledging the
Bishop of Rome as Supreme Head of the Church, and
Infallible Arbiter of the Faith, we may henceforth
refer them to the marble Statue in the Vatican, and
bid them consult St. H1ppotytus.

16. Thankful, however, as we ought to be for
this recent discovery, perhaps they who have cause
to be most grateful, are the Clergy and Laity of
Rome. ‘Truth is to be prized above all things, espe-
cially in matters of Faith. Arguments from adver-
saries, real or supposed, and especially from contem-
poraneous adversaries, are often regarded with suspi-
cion, and rejected with scorn. But here the mem-
bers of the Church of Rome may read a Treatise,
written by one whose name they love and venerate,

on Roman Claims to Supremacy. 221

one who has no interests to serve, no passions to
gratify; a Bishop, Doctor, Saint, and Martyr, of
their own Church.

~ “He being dead yet speaketh ’.”

He speaks to them from the grave, he speaks to
them from primitive times—from the third century.
He sits on his marble chair in the Pontifical Library
at Rome, and teaches them there.

May it not be supposed, that Roman Prelates and
Cardinals, passing along those ancient galleries, may
pause for a while, and contemplate his venerable
form, and hearken to the words of Truth which pro-
ceed from his lips? May it not be believed, that
Divines of Rome, proceeding to or from that rich
Library, may muse on the precepts of wisdom
delivered to them by St. Hippolytus? May we not
cherish the hope, that Clergy and Laity of the Ro-
man Church, whether residing at Rome, or coming
thither from afar, may not quit the courts of the
Vatican, without listening to the solemn warnings and
exhortations on Church Polity and Christian Doc-
trine, which are suggested by that Statue, and are
inculeated in the History of him whom it represents,
and whom they venerate as a Saint ?

May it please the same merciful Providence, which
has awakened the voice of Hippolytus from its

silence of sixteen centuries, to bless its accents to

” Heb. xi. 4.

222 Appeal to St. Hippolytus, &c.

their souls’ health! May it be so blessed from on
high, that it may promote the peace of Nations, and
the cause of Truth, and the Unity of the Church,
and the Glory of Almighty God, now and for ever-
more !

PHILOSOPHUMENA;

SIVE,

REFUTATIO HARESIUM.

NONNULLA EX LIBRIS IX ET X EXCERPTA.

*,.* Pretiminary Nore.—The Paging on the left hand Mar-
gin refers to M. Miller's Edition. Any variations from his Text
that may appear requisite to the present Editor of this portion of
the Work will be specified in the notes beneath the T'ext, but none
have been introduced into the Text itself.

The figures prefixed to the present Editor's notes refer to the
Lines of the English Translation.

The readings of the Paris Manuscript, when not followed in the

Text, are indicated in the collation immediately under the Greek
Text.

TOY KATA ITASQON AIPEXEQN EAETXOY

BIBAION 0’.

aipécewy 'EXéyyov.

> ~ >] ~ ~
p.278 TAAE éveorw év rh evvdry Tov Kara racev

Tis 1) Nonrot BAdodnpos adpoobyn, kal dre

Odypacw ‘HpakXelrou TOV XKOTELVOV TPOETYED,

5 oo _
5 ow TOlS Xp.orov.

Kat wos KadXuoros pitas tiv KXeopévovs

~~ A /
paOnrot Nonrod nal Ocoddrov aipecw, erépay

/ o / \ 4 € /
KALVOTE DAV ALNEOLY DVUVEOTIIGE, KAL TLS O TOVTOV

Bios.

Tis Kevyn émidnula rod Eévov dalpmovos

"HAyacat cat ore oxérn tov iWlwy ohadparor

~~ ~ / an
TO Ookely mpocéyew Vvouw TP O€ovTL, yywoTuKotS

Odypacw 7
TPOOKEITAL.

2. Cod. €ArAeyxou.

\ > ~
Kal aorpodoyKkois «Kal payetats

13. Cod. payias.

1. Similia premisit Sanctus
Irenzus, Lugdunensis Episcopus,
Sancti Hippolyti magister, Libris
suis adversus Heereses. Vide
ante Libros IV. et V. ad quorum
exemplar sua composuisse videtur
noster.

4. rod Sxorewod. De hoc He-
racliti, Philosophi Ephesii, epi-

theto, propter scriptorum obscuri-
tatem indito, vide, si placet, Clem.
Alex. Potter, ii. 676, not. Non
illibenter recordabere graves Lu-
cretii versus, i. 636 :

‘** Quapropter qui materiem rerum esse
putarunt
Ignem, atque ex igni summam con-
sistere solo,

PHILOSOPHUMENA; OR, REFUTATION
OF HERESY.—BOOK THE NINTH.

Tue following are the Contents of the Nintu Book p,278

of the RerutaTion of ALL HERESIES.

What was the impious infatuation of Norrus,
and that he clave to the doctrines of Heraclitus the
Obscure, and not to those of Christ.

How Catuistus blended the Heresy of Cleomeunes,
the disciple of Noetus, with that of Theodotus, and
constituted another stranger Heresy; and what was

his manner of life.

What was the strange sojourn at Rome of the 10
portentous spirit of Elchasai ; and how a semblance
of reverence for the Law (of Moses) was made by
him a cloke for his errors; whereas, in fact, he ad-
heres to Gnostic or even to Astrological Theories,

and to Magic.

Magnopere a vera lapsi ratione videntur.

HERACLITUS init quorum dux preelia
primus,

Clarus ob obscuram linguam magis
inter inanes,

Quamde graveis inter Graios qui vera
requirunt.

Omnia enim stolidi magis admirantur
amantque,

Inversis que sub verbis latitantia cer-
nunt,

Veraque constituunt, que belle tangere
possunt

Aureis, et lepido que sunt fucata
sonore,”

7. S. Hippol. c. Noét. § 3.
Gcddotos tiv Xpiordv avOpwrov
ouvioray Widdv BovdAdpevos.

10. xevy ita M.S. Sed legen-
dum kaw quivis viderit.

13. 7d Soxeiy mpocéxew vouo
T@ Sedvti, yvwortixois doypdow
-..mpdcxerra. Ita ex codice
MS. unico Millerus. Sed inter-
pungendum post ydue, deinde le-
gendum, vocibus disjunctis, TQ
SE ONTI yvoorikois 8. 1. i. e.
“ Simulat se Legi Mosaice inhee-

Q

226 Philosophumena ;

/ \ > : i \ A /
15 Tiva ra TIovodatois On, kat roca tobrwr

dtadopat.

~~ ~~ o /
IIo\Aod rolvvy rov mepl macHy aipecewv
/ € ~ >] ~ / >] /
yevouevov nuivy ayovos, wnOev re aveEeheyKrov
~ ~ / \
KaraXiTovet, TepirelmeraL VoV O [LéeyLOTOS AYWY,
? \ / \ > 19 a >
20 ExOinynoacOar Kat OvehéeyEar ras ed piv eEr-
/ 2 \ > ~ \
P.279 avaoracas aipesels, Ov wy Ties apaets Kal TOA<
x f 3 , \ >]
pnpot Otackedavybew emeyeionoay thy Ex«Xy-
clay, péyloroy Tadpayoy Kara TavTa TOV KdopoV
5] 4 ~ = > - lon \
€v mao Tots mioTois EuBaddovTes. Aoxet yap
\ \ lad ~ 4,
5éml THY apynyoyv TOY KaKOY yevonerny yyouny
€ , / , € , 2 \
opnoavras OvekeyEar Tives at Trabrys apyat,
v4 bd € > 4 » ae 7 ,
OTWS EvyYwoTaL al ExPuaddEs avTHs aTact yevo-
pevat Karappovnbact.
/ , 2 ke \ a /
Teyevnrat ris ovopart Nonros, T@ yevet
_ e ’ land
10 Xpvpvaios. Otros eionynoaro aipecw ek Tov
c , , z , \ \
HoakXetrov doyparwy, ob didkovos Kat paOyrns
> nm ¢
yiverar “Eniyovés ris rodvopa, os rH Popy
> , R. / \ ” / a
eTlonpnoas ereorerpe THY AVeov yvwpny. “Qe
b]
pabnreboas KXeopévns kal Bip kal rpdmm addo-

Soe , ’ , \ , >
15 Tplos THs ExkAnolas, expatvve To Ooypa, Kat

17. In cod. titulus : Bikocopoupevev Evvarov. Nonrtés. ib. Cod.
moNXol roivur. 2. Cod. dtacxedavoinv. 4, Cod. racts
TLoTOts. 12. Cod. ry ‘Payny.
rere, T@ d€ dvri, sed de facto gnos- 10. Vide inf. p. 329. 34—60.

ticis deliriis se mancipavit,” vide | Hippol. c. Noét. § 1, ed. Fabr.
inf. p. 293. 22. ii. 5. Nonrov ds TO pev -yever Hv

or, Refutation of Heresy. 227

What are the customs of the Jews, and how many 15
their differences.

We have performed a laborious work with regard
to all (former) heresies, and have left none unrefuted;
but there remains now the hardest toil of all; to 20
give a complete description and refutation of those P.279
Heresies which have arisen in our own age, by means
of which some unlearned and bold men have under-
taken to distract the Church, and have produced
very great confusion throughout the world among all 5
the faithful. For it appears requisite to revert to
the dogma which was the primary source of the evil,
and to expose its origin, so that its offshoots may be
manifest to all, and may be contemned.

There was a certain Noretus, of Smyrna. He in- 10
troduced a heresy from the tenets of Heraclitus. One
Epigonus was his agent and scholar, who, coming to
Rome, disseminated his impious doctrine. Cleomenes
his disciple, an alien from the Church in life and

disposition, fortified that doctrine.

At that time

Spupvaios od mpd mroAdov xpdvou
yevouevos. Ephesium vocat Epi-
phanius, Heres. lvii. Vide et
Joann. Damascen. de Heres. ec.
57. Ceeterum in tono vocis fluc-
tuant Codices, aliis Nonrds, aliis
Nénros exhibentibus.

13. Vide Nostrum, lib. x. p.
829. 34. Nonrds elonynoaro tot-
dvde atpeow e& ’Emcydvou twos eis
KAcopéevny xopjoacay, unde sua

hausisse videtur Theodoretus, iii.
8. Nonrds dvevemoaro tiv aipe-
ow, i Emiyovos drexinoe mparos,
KXeopuevns S€ mapadkaBav €BeBai-
woe. Hine, opinor, suspicari licet
Theodoretum libro Decimo, com-
pendiario illo, usum esse, non
autem Nostri opus integrum pre
manibus habuisse, idque ei in hoc
loco fraudi fuisse. Vide supra
p. 148, infra Append. ii.

Gg. 2

228 Narrative

> a ~ /
exeivo Kaipov Zedupivoy diérey vowilovros thy
b>] ’ ~
exkAnaiay, avdpds idwrov Kal aioypoKepdovs”
a ca /
[os] rp Képder mpocpepopérvy reOdpevos, cvv-
EYWPEL TOIS ToocLOvoL TH KAEonever paOnredb-
? Ht pagon
\ ae. € / - / Pore
20 ea0at, Kal avTos VrocvpdpmEvos THY ypdyw ETL
\ \ ~
Ta avTa HOLNTO, GvpBobrAoOV Kal cvvaywricTOD
ToY Kakoy bvTos av’t@ KaXdXiorov, ob Tov Biov.
\ \ 3 ~ od > > Nia ,
Kal THY EdevpeOeioay aipeow pet ov TOAD EKON-
copa. Tobrwy cara dvadoyny dvépewe 70 dWa-
~ I =
25oKa\elov Kparuvomevoy Kal emavéorv, dia TO
cvvawpeicbat avrois Tov Zedupivoy cal rov Kad-
a /
Atcrov, Kaito nuwv pynderoTe cvyywpnoavrwr,
’ \ , b] 7 \ b) ‘
adX\a wretorakis aytixaQeotwTwy mods avrovs
p ’
\
kal duedeyEdvrwy, Kal dkovras Biacapévwv Thy
>] ~
30 aAnGevav opodoyetv® ot mods pey wpav aidob-
qn >
pevol, kal Od THs adnOelas cvvaydopevot, wLo-
\ \ 9
AOyour, wer Ov TOAD O€ Ext TOY avrov BdpBo00r
YOu", fi Prep

bp] ,
AVEKUVALOVTO.

18. Addidit os Millerus.
scripto.
29. Cod. dteAreyéavror.

21. Cod. cvpBdrov.

19. Cod. KXeopuévy, cum iota sub-
28. Cod. davrixabeorérov.

16. Vide apud Euseb. v. 28;
vi. 21. De Zephyrino heec habet
liber Pontificalis Damaso ascrip-
tus ap. Labbé, Concil. i. p. 602.
“ Zephyrinus natione Romanus
ex patre Abundantio sedit annos
viii (xviii?), menses vii, dies x.
Fuit autem temporibus Antonini
et Severi a consulatu Saturnini
et Gallicani, usque ad Presentem

et Strigatum consules. Hic fecit
ordinationes ivy per mens. De-
cemb. Presbyteros 13, Diaconos
7, Episcopos per loca 13. Qui
sepultus est in ccemeterio suo,
non longé a ccemeterio Callisti,
via Appia.” Dissonantia inter se
tradunt auctores de annis Zephy-
rini, aliis ab a.p. 198, aliis ab
A.D. 201 Pontificatum ejus ordi-

concerning the Church of Rome.

229

ZePHYRINUS imagined that he governed the Church,

an illiterate and covetous man.

He being allured

by offers of lucre, conceded to those who resorted to
Cleomenes to become his scholars; and at length,

being inveigled himself, he ran into the same errors, 29

having, as his adviser and coadjutor in evil, CALLISTUs,
whose life and whose heresy, invented by him, I will

-soon relate.

During their succession this school subsisted, being
strengthened and aggrandized, because Zephyrinus 25
and Callistus co-operated with them, although we
never gave place, but very often resisted them, and
confuted them, and compelled them reluctantly to
own the truth; which they did through shame for a
time, and being constrained by the force of truth;
but soon afterwards they returned to wallow in the

same mire.

entibus ; quidam in a.p. 214 exi-
tum figunt, nonnulli ad a.p, 219
continuant. Vide Clintoni Fas-
tos ad a.p. 210. Ab a.p. 202
ad a.p. 218 sedisse-statuit Jaffé,
Regest. Pontif. p. 5, ed. 1851.

- ib. Zehupivov vopifovtros &-
émew tiv éxxAnviay, de hac lo-
quendi formula vide, si lubet, que
supra monuimus, pp. 883—90.

20. Spunro sic MS. Sed le-
gendum videtur @pparo.

26. cvvapetcOa ita ex Codice
Millerus. Sed reposueris cvvai-
perOa ; vide Philosophumena, inf.
288, 89. cuvvapduevory, et p. 143,

77, Aéyovot Maceéa aitay ovvai-
pecOat To déyo.

27. Hee et que sequuntur co-
lorem orationis traxisse videntur
ex Apostoli historia suam ipsius
cum 6. Petro concertationem
enarrantis, ad Galat. ii. 5—13.

31. émi rov adrov BopBopov dv-
exvAiovro ex B. Petr. 2. ii. 22, ds
Aovoapuevyn eis KUALT POY BopBo-
pov: que quidem Sancti Apos-
toli verba ex Greeco Senario Pro-
verbiali videntur efficta, quem sic
se olim habuisse conjecerim,
els idiov e&€pap’ emiatpéwas Kir,
AeAoupevn O ds cis KvALo pa BopBo-

pov.

230 Philosophumena.

b J > > \ “nw ~ \
P.280 “ANN Emel rhs ysveadoyias ad’rayv Tip
‘ \ > lanl A \ a7
dradoyny emedeiEaper, Ooxet Nowrov Kai Tov doy-
, \ / > / /
parwv Thy Kakodtoackadiay exOecOat, mpdrepov
ta ‘HoakXeirm tp Xkorew@ OdEavra mapabe-
J ” \ \ 4 / c /
5 evous, Ereita Kat Ta TobTwy péopn Hpakdetrera
_~ “ ro
dvra davep@oalt, a TUY6VTES Oi VOY TpOCTAaTaL
an / =~ rod
Ths aipécews ovK toacw oyta Tov Lkorewod,
, > ~ = > aoa v
vouiCovres etvat Xpiorov. Ois et evervyoy, Kav
a / / > Ifn/
ovTw OvownnOervres raboovrat THs aQeéov dve-
3 »] \ v7 >
10 @nptas. “AAXN et Kal mpdrepoy Exxerrar VP
~ tA
av ev trois Piocohovpevors y OdEa “Hoa-
kXelrov, adda ye Ooxet rpocavarapayOqvat cal
~ fd, \ ~ > , 5 4 a
VUV, OTWS OLA TOV Eyylovos EEyYoU aveEeows
OwWayO0eow ot robrov vopulZovres Xptorov eivat
A 9 ” >] \ ~ an
15 paOnras, ovK byras, adXAa TOU TKorewor.
c , \ 5 \ - pk ~
HodkXerros prev odbv now eivar to may
>] b J \
Otaiperov, advalperov, yevnrov, ayeévnror, Ovyror,
In? , 9A / eX \ ,
aQavaroyv, \éyov aiwva, marépa vidv, Dedy di-
> ~ >] \ ca >
katov. “OvK epov, adda Tov ddyparos aKot-
~ 3 a
20 cavTas oporoyeiy copdyv eoTw, Ev Tavra

5. Cod. émei kai rd. 7. Cod. eicaow. 11, Cod. dido-
codoupevous. Cf. lib. I. cap. 4. 12. Cod. pis dvrapayOnvat.
13. Cod. dyyiovos é\déyxov. 20. Cod. éorw ev.

11. Pro kav ovr raveovra: le- 21. Adoyos bia odcias Tov mapy-

gendum videtur wavcawrort, vide rds diyxov. Heraclitus vocat ov-
Pref. p. 2. dmas aicyuvOevres ciav cipvappévns, vide Stob. Ecl.
mavo@vrai Tt THs Gdoyiorov yvo- Phys. i. vi. 15. Galen. Hist.
ns. Phil. x. Plutarch. Placit. Phil. 28.

13. Lib. i. p. 10. ib. mayra Wuxav kat datpdvev

Digression on Heraclitus. 231

But since we have indicated the succession of P.280
their lineage, it seems requisite now to exhibit the
pravity of their doctrines. (This we will do) first by
setting down the opinions of Heraciirus the Ob-
scure, next by displaying those portions of their 5
system that are derived from him, which they who
now promote this heresy have espoused, being not
aware that those tenets are borrowed from Heracli-
tus; but they imagine them to be from Christ. If,
however, they met with them (thus displayed), per-
haps even by this means they might be shamed out
of their impious language. And although the tenets
of Heraclitus have been already set forth in our “ Phi-
losophumena,” yet we will now also revert to them,
in order that by this closer examination, those per- 15
sons may be instructed, who imagine that these
men are disciples of Christ, whereas they are scholars
not of Him, but of Heraclitus.

Heraclitus then asserts that all things are divisible,
indivisible; created, uncreated; mortal, immortal ; 90
Reason, Eternity; Father, Son; but that Deity is
by chance. “It is wise,” he says, “to listen, not to
me, but to the doctrine, and to confess that all things

os

0

eivat méa statuebat Heraclitus: xaiovh.e.est fortuitum: elkatoycum

vide Diog. Laert. ix.

21. Gedy Sixacov. Sic Codex,
etiam Bernaysio tacente, et ut
videtur, probante apud Bunsen.
(iv. pp. xl. xlii.) vix a me impetrare
possum, ut Aix aoy sanum credam.
Ne te morer, pro AIKAION legen-
dum conjecerim A’ EIKAION ; ¢i-

dixacoy confundi alibi monui (ad
Theocr. p. 115). Quod ad sensum
attinet, rem explicare videtur nos-
ter inf. 281. 77, rods peév Oeods
édecEe rods dé dvOparrovs, sed utrum
horum, esse incertum. Quippe
Providentiam abnegabat Heracli-
tus et omnia casui permittebat.

25

P.281

232 Philosophumena.

Ss >» ] 4 € ° ~

cival, oO Hpakde:ros dnol, kal ore rotro ovK

” "8 >] \ i 4 ra 5] 4,

LOAGL WaVvTEs OVE ofodoyovow, EeTipenperat

,

ooe ros’ “Od Evviacw Skws Ovahepdpevor

4 ee ~ ,

EWUTD Opooye ety taNXivrporos apmovin OKWS
\ 3) 7

TED roEov Kat Ops. "Ort O€ hédyos €oTl del

TO Tav Kal Ola TmavTos Ov, ovTWS héyeu" “Tov

d€ Adyou Tov O€ovTos ae. abbyerou yvovrat

” \ , ‘\ b] lon \ >]

avOpwrot, Kal m™poa0ev N) akovoat Kal axodv-

\ fen ae /
cavTes TO TPHTOY* YyWwopLevovy yap TAVTWV
\ \ , 4 wv >] \ > J ,

Kara Tov Oyov TévdE ATEWDOL ElolY, EoiKaGL
A. 2 / Weed ~

TELDWLEVOL KL €ETEWY Kal Epywv TOLOVTEWY OKOTA

b ] A ~ 7 \

Eyw Omyedpat, Ovaipewy Kara dbow Kat ppacoy

odd ” bP] a 4 3 ~ A a >

OKWS EYEL. Or. 0€ €oTt Twais TO wav Kal OL

21. Cod. mavra cidéva. 22. Cod. cicacr. 23. “Pro
manivtporos legitur maXivrovos apud Plut. de Isid. et Osirid. p. 369,
A: Iladivrovos yap appovin xécpov domep Rvpns Kat tdfov, Kal

“HpdkXetrov.” Miller.

25. Cod. dv.

26. Cod. dei £eroi.

“ Correctum ex Clem. Al. Strom. V. p. 716.” Miller. 28. Cod.
dxovoavras et yivdpevor. 1. Cod. émoia. 2. Cod.
Suyyevpa, dvepéwv. 3. Cod. dros.

23. dpodoyéew. Millerus le- mep Adpns Kai réEov. His ad-

gendum censet dpodoyée, sed
jungenda videntur €uviaow 6épo-
Aoyeew, dixerat enim éemipéeugerat
OT TOUTO OVy GpoAoyodaoty.

ib. dvahepopevoy EwiTG mahiv-
Tporros appovin Oxws mep TéEov Kat
Avpns legendum puto diadhepopevov,
ut sensus sit, harmonia inest inver-
sain re qualibet sibi opposita,quem-
admodum arcus inversus, sive in
dorsum rejectus, fitlyra. Ceterum
monente Millero hee citat Plu-
tarchus de Iside et Osirid., p. 369,
A, wadivtovos appovin kéopov do-

scribi meretur nobile Heracliti
fragmentum quod conservavit Sto-
beeus Eclog. Phys. i. xlii. ocup-
dyetas ovAov kal ovxi odhov cup
pepopevoyvy Stahepopervoy,
/ , 3 A a A
ovvadoy diadov, €x mavrav ev Kal
3 a! / e A A - or
€& évds mavTa’ oUT@s THY TOV Ohov
cvotracw dia THs TaY evavTi@Td-
Tov kpdcews apyav pia diexoopnoev
dppovia, pia dia ravrev Sinxovea bv-
vapis, €k TOV apixtey Kal érepoi@v
Tov oupmavta Kédopov Snusovpyn-
caca. Vide etiam que de Hera-
clito narrat Plato Sophist. § 868,

Heraclitus.

are One.”

233

And he complains that all do not know
and own this, as follows.

“They have not under-

standing to confess how in that which is opposite to
itself there is an inverse harmony as in a bow and a

lyre.”

And that Reason is always every thing and 25

pervades all things, he thus declares, “ Men do not
comprehend this Reason which is ever existent ; either
before they hear of it, or when they first hear of it.
For although every thing is produced according to

this Reason, yet they resemble men who are un- P.281

acquainted with it, although they have had experience
of such words and works as I expound, distinguishing
them according to their nature, and declaring their

mode of existence.”

And that a child (a son) is every thing, and 5

p- 368, Heindorf. d:apepdpevov
dei ouppépera. Euseb. Preepar.
Evang. xiv. 4, et Schleiermacher
de Heraclito in Mus. Antiq. Stud.
I, p. 408.

26. Aristot. Rhet. iii. 5. ra
“HpakXeirov dtacriga Epyor, pyot
yap “rod Adyouv rovd éovros aiel
agiverot dvOpwrot yiyvoyra” adn-
Rov yap ro alel mpds drorepor Set
dvacriga. Citat v. 26 usque ad
Skas €xec Sextus Empiricus ady.
Mathem. Lib. vii. p. 162, ed.
Aurel. 1621.

28. Comparari possunt verba
Heracliti ap. Clem. Alex. p. 156.
14, Potter. od @povéovew rovatra
moddot koro eykupéovart, ovde
paddrres yryvackovot.

1. Gmreipoi eiow eoixact Treipod-
pevot kai éréwy. Sic MS. Delet

eiot Millerus, adstipulante, ut ait
Clem. Alex. Strom. vy. 718, sed
ibi kaots eoixace Clemens, unde
pro ATIEIPOI EISIN éoixacy, le-
gere mallem AITEIPOISIN éo/kaot,
i, e. inexpertis similes sunt, et sic
reddidi.

5. Lucian. in Vitarum Auc-
tione, i. p. 554, ed. Hemsterh.
ATOP. ri yap 6 Ai@y é€ort; HPA-
KAEITOS. rats raiforv, reooevwr,
diadhepopevos, ubi res humanas plo-
rat Heraclitus, dri €umedov ovder,
GAG kos eis KUKeGva TavTa ovYVEL-
Aéerat kal drt TwiTd TépYis, arep-
Win, yraots, adyvecin, péya, put-
Kpoy, dvw, KaT@, TeptyopevorTa Kal
dpeBopeva ey TH Tod ala@vos
main.

Sic enim viam sibi
munit Hippolytus qua ab Hera-

ib. zrais.

234 Philosophumena.

>A 27 \ a ies er , -
5 al@vos alwvios Baoievs Tov OAwY OVTWS EYEL
‘ce Pes a 3 \. df / 4 \ €
Atwyv mats €orl railwy, merrebwv" ratoos 7
aA bP 4 F390 4 \ 4 =
BactArntn. Ort 0€ €oTw 0 TaTNHp TavTwWY THY
~ ’ /
yeyovorwy yevntav, ayévyros Kriots Oniovpyos;
Bits iy / > / . 6 rv £
exelvou NEeyovTos axobwpev’ “ TloAenos ravrwv
X , ? , \ + Sd \ \
9 >]
10 FEV TaTho EoTl, TavTwy de Bacirevs, Kat TOUS
‘\ \ v \ Oe b 6 , \ \
pev Oeovs ederée, Tovs dé avOpwrovs, ToVS perv
\ a eS / 7 ‘&
dovrovs Enoinoe, Tovs dé EXevOEpovs. “Ort 0€
> a4 c 4 c / \ 4 Do
eat “ appovin oKws wep TOSov Kal Nbpns. “Ore
\ > \ > \ SS v > /
de |€arly |adavis 0 adparos Ayvworos avOporots
>] c 3 \ >
isev tobrois Aéyer’ “ Appovin adarvyns davepas
, bb) b a \ / .. ~
KpeltTwv. Erawel cat mpoQavpater mp0 Tov
/ U a y
ywookopévov TO ayvwotoy avrod Kal adparoy
a ’ ¢ To ¢ . 9 ,
Ths Ovvapews. “Ort 0€ Ear opatos avOpwrots
‘ > b) / ? / / o £65",
Kat ovK ave€ebperos, ev Tovrois Eyer Oowr
v > A 4 ~ b] \ / > \
20 Os, akon, WaOnaots, TAVTA Eyw TeOTWMLEW, NOL,
/ \ ~ > >] a
TovTéoTt Ta Opata Tov aopdrwy. “Amd Tor
4 J ~ , ~ C7 * > v
TOLOUVTWY avTOU AOYwY KaTavoety padioy’ EEnTa-
ThvTal, dnoly, of avOpwrot Tpds TY yYoow TOV
2] a >, vA ~~
pavepov maparAnciws Opunow, os eyévero Tov
4 > ~
25 EXAjvwr codwrepos ravtwv. ‘Exeivoy re yap
~ ~ >
matdes POcipas Karaxreivovres e&nrarnoay el-

14. In cod. post d€ vocula verme exesa.
ib. Cod. dcov dys.

9. Cod. dxovoper.
19. Cod. av efeuperds.

clito Noétum sua sumpsisse con-
firmet. ‘“Solenne enim Hippo-
lyto Filium Dei appellare maida
Gcov,” ait Grabius ad Bull. Def.
Fid. Nic. ii. 8.5. Sed in hae re
ut in aliis plerisque, Hippolyto

preiverat Irenzus y. 6. Vide e.
Noét. § 5. § 7, vovs Iarpés 6
Ilais. § 11, Adyos Nods ds mpo-
Bas ev kdope@ edeixvuto ILats Geov.
de Antichristo, c. 3.

12. Vide Heraclit. ap. Stob.

235

Heraclitus.

eternal king of all things through eternity, he thus
declares. “A boy at his games, playing with his
dice, is eternity; the kingdom is his;’ And let us
hear how he teaches that uncreated creature creating

is the parent of all created things. “Antagonism 10
is the parent of all things, and the ruler of all: and
some it generated to be gods, and some men; some
it produced slaves, and some free.” And that there

is a harmony, as in a bow and lyre.

And that invisible harmony is better, unseen and 15
unknown to men, he thus says: “ Harmony invisible
is better than visible.” He thus praises and prefers
that which is unknown and invisible of its power,
before that which is visible.

But that harmony visible to men and not un- 20
discoverable is preferable, he says thus: “As many
things as are subject to the sense of sight, hearing,
intelligence, these I prefer,” he says: that is, he
prefers the visible to the invisible.

From such words as these it is easy to compre- 25
hend him. ‘“ Men,” says he, “are deceived with re-
gard to the knowledge of what is evident, as Homer
was, who was wiser than all the Greeks.”

Eclog. I. iii. 28. mip didiov ek rijs
évavttodpopias Snpiovpydy trav
ddov.

20. Post ér d€ vocem verme
exesam notat Millerus qui sup-
plevit é€oriv. Supplendum videtur

kpeirrav. Tum post ddavis de-
lendum ‘O.

25. xatavoeivy pddioy, ironicé
dictum.

28. Cetera que in hoc com-
mate leguntur prudens pretereo.

236 Philosophumena.

df U . ms
movres, “Ooa etoopev Kal karehaBopmev, ravra
>
aroXelropev, doa O€ ovreE eldomev ovr éa-
~ /
Bopev, ravTa Pépoper.
€ b Uj \
30 Odtrws Hpodkde ros ev toy potpa riOerat wal
wn \ > ~ ~ ’ / € id A A
TYLA Ta Earn Trois apavéow, ws Ev Tt TO
> J \ \ A, "3 \ € / € -
P.282 Eaves Kal TO adaves opodoyoupevws UTapyor.
\ \ € > A ~
Tis yap, Pyotr, “ appovin aparns Pavepjs Kpeir-
”» Sees ” ee , ,
tov. Kai “dow dis, acon, paOnots (rovréors
\ bf ~ \ > \ / > b]
Ta bpyava), Tadvra, Pynolv, Eyo TpOTILEW, Ov
\ > la , ~ x08 ,
5Ta abavn mootytnoas. Totyapovy ovde oKéros
b] XN ~ >) \ A b] ‘\ ? \ i?
ovde as, ovde rovnpoy ovde ayaloy eErepov
> c b) X. ad
dynoly eivat 6 HpdkXetros, adda Ev Kal 70 adré.
> ~ rt c / i¢d c / N ,
Eniryia your Howddm ort npépay Kat vixra
> € / \ \ \ \ ” a
oidev. Hpepa yap, not, Kal vvé eorw ev,
«9/ \
10A€ywv wdé mos “ Aiddokados dé mrelorwr
‘Holodos’ rovroyv éxtoravrat mAeiora eEldévat,
ied BOS \ > , 9 » SO ”
OoTIs NmEpHY Kal Evppdvny ovK EeylvwoKer. * Eort
\ a » Fas 4 \ \ Pegi Dy € as bd \
yao ev cat ayaOov Kai kaxév. Oi yovr iarpot,
\ € ¢ , f , 4
dyoiv o HodkXerros, réuvovres, Kaiovres, wavTy
~ \ > lo b I
15 BacaviZovres “Kak@s Tovs appworovrTas, ETat-
Tiovrat pnoev ag.oy picOov AapPavew rapa TOY
~ b Bites J \ \
appworobyrwy, radra éepyaCopevor ra ayaa Kal
\ \ \ \ \
ras vocovs. Kal ev0d de, dnol, cal orpeBXor,
4 \ \ a \
70 avTo €o7t. Tpadéwr, dynatv, odds edOeta kat

2. Cod. dppovia 7 adarns. 12. Cod. evppooimny.

2. Cod. ris yap, pnoiv, ap- legendum censet éort, deinde
povia ) apayvns. Pro ris Millerus dppovin abavns—Sed si sententia

Heraclitus. 237

Thus Heraclitus esteems and honours alike what 30
is visible and invisible, as if the visible and the in-
visible were confessedly one. “For what invisible P.282
harmony,” says he, “is better than visible? And as
many things as are subject to vision, hearing, intel-
ligence, that is, the organs, these I prefer ”—he, who
before had preferred the invisible! 5

Therefore, Heraclitus denies that Darkness and
Light, Good and Evil, are different, and affirms that
they are one and the same. Truly, at least, he re-
bukes Hesiod for recognizing Day and Night. For
Day and Night, he says, are one; speaking as follows. 10
“ Hesiod taught many things; and men imagine that
he knew many things, although he did not know
(the nature) of Day and Night. For Good and Evil
is one. Certainly, at least,” says Heraclitus, “ Phy-
sicians, when they amputate, cauterize, and cruelly 15
torture their patients in every way, complain that
they do not receive from them any adequate remu-
neration for their pains, although they do them these
good deeds as to their diseases.”

And straight and crooked, he says, are the same. 20
The path, says he, of the lines of the machine called

legitur interrogativé, vitio carere | mendosé. Reponendum videtur

videtur, nisi quod deleta 7, Lonicee
forme dppovin davepns restitu-
ende sint.
4, Pro OY legere mallem ‘O.
17, pndev akiov pc Odr ita Cod.

pndev’ dEwov pucOdv, vel pndev
a£vov picOopa.

19. ravra épyaféuevor ra dyaba
Kai ras vécous. Sic vitiosé MS.
—Pro KAI TAS vdcous legendum

P.283 Biov reQveares.

238

Philosophumena.

4 pla ee ~ /
20 oKoALn 1) TOU Opydvov Tov Kaovpevov KoyAlov"

ev TO yoadhely meptotpogy evOcta Kal oKodsh.

v \ € - \ / / 5 , ? \
Avw yap ofov Kat Koc mepleyerat’ pia Eori,

\ \ ¢ 9K \ 5 ps \ A , oe
dnt, Kal 2} AUTN, KAL TO AVW Kal TO KATW EV

’
EOTL.

\ \ 958 €\ ” , / \
Kai ro avro odds avw Kato, pia Kal

| \ \ 4 \ \ X a \
25 WUT), KAL TO pLLapov pneu Kal TO KkaQapov €v Kal

\ y \ \ 4 \ A. 8 a
TAUTOV ELVAL, KAL TO TOTLLOV Kat TO ATOTOV, EV

kal TO avro eivar’ Oddacca, dyoly, Vdwp KkaOa-

\ \ \
pwraroy Kal pirapwraroy, iyObou peyv méryoy Kal

, > / ms v » a> | /
cwrhpvoyv, avOowmos dé amoroy Kat odeOptor.

/ \ € / \ If 7 >
30 Aéyer 0€ oporoyoupevws ro alavaroy eivat

\ \ \ \ > , ‘\ ~ ,
Ovnrov Kal to Ovnrov aQavaroy Oia TOY TOLObTwY

Néywv’ “’AOdvarot Ovyrol, Ovnrol aOdvaror,

i \ bd , 4 \ ‘\ b ]
Cavres tov exelywv Odavarov, rov O€ eKelvov

cracw tabrns pavepads ev y yeyevnpeOa.

, \ \ \ >
Aeéyer 0€ Kat capKos ava-

Kal

\ \ > / ~ 3 4 ”
tov Qeoyv oide rabrns THs avacTradcews aiTioy

vA
OUTWS AE yor" “"Ry@a 0 édvrt. éerravloracbat

\ ~
skal ddbdakas yivecBar eyepriZovTwy Kal vEKpOV.

/ \ Oh 5 \
Aéyew O€ Kal Tov Kéopov Kpiow Kat mavTwY

ais LS a aie \ \ , , ¢ 4
TOY Ev avTM Ola Tupos yiveoOal, KEywY OVTWS

putaverim KATTA vdgovs, i. e.
Ionica Heracliti dialecto, cara
Tas vécous.

24. Homeric. Allegor. § 24. 6
yoov ZKorewds ‘Hpdkretros Geo-
Aoyet ra hvorka, d¢ Sv pyor, Ceol
Ovntoi, avOpwrot dOavaror, Cavres
Tov exeivoy Odvaroy, OvnoKovrTes
Tv exeivav Conv. Hue fortasse

respexerit Clem. Alex. Peedagog.
iii. p. 251. 6p0@s dpa etmev “Hpa-
KXertos, "AvOpamot Oeoi: Geol dv-
O@pwro. Sext. Empir. iii, 24. 6
“Hpdkderos now Gre cal rd Gyv
kal To arrobavetv Kal ev TO Cyv Hpas
éoTi kal ev T@ TeOvdvar’ Gre pev
yap jpeis (Opev tas Wuyas nav
reOvava. Clem. Alex. Strom. iii.

Heraclitus. 239

the screw is both straight and crooked ; and the revo-
lution in the graving-tool is both straight and crooked.
For it goes upwards at the same time, and revolves
in a cirele. And ascent and descent is one. 25

And a road upward and downward is one and the
same. And, he says, that what is impure and pure
is one and the same, and what is potable and not
potable is one and the same. The sea, says he, is
very pure water and very impure, being potable and 30
preservative to fish, but not potable and destructive
to men. Similarly he says, that what is immortal is
mortal, and what is mortal is immortal, in such lan-
guage as follows: Immortals are mortal, mortals
are immortal, the one living the death, but having 36
died the life of the other.

He affirms also the Resurrection of this visible P.283
flesh in which we were born; and recognizes God as
the cause of this Resurrection, saying thus: That
they arise again there [through God’s aid], and be-
come the guardians vigilantly of quick and dead. 5

He asserts also a Judgment of the world and all
things therein by Fire. Thunder, says he, steers all

p. 434. odxt kal “Hpdkderros @a-
vatoy tiv yéveow Karel; vide ad
Plat. Gorg. p. 495. A.

26. Vide Heeren ad Stob. Ecl.
Phys. lii. Cum omnia mutatione
fieri statueret Heraclitus, hanc ip-
sam peraBoAny 6ddv dyw kal Kato
vocayit teste Diog. Laer. ix. 8.

4, &vOa & édvte éravioracba
kal dvAaxas yiverOa éyepri{dr-
Tov kal vexpav. Sic Cod. Locum
ita constituit Bernaysius, apud

Bunsenium, iv. p. xliii. €vOa did
Gcdv te eravicracba kai pidrakas
yiveo Ou eyepti Cavtay kal vexpar.
Color poéticus esse videtur, ita
ut fortasse versuum hujusmodi re-
liquias delitescere censeam,

ev0a § édvras
elrev dviotracOa didakds Te ye-

véerOa éyepri

(avrev kal vexpor.
7. Deigne omnium exploratore
Heraclitus ap. Clem. Al. p. 235.

240 Philosophumena.

\ \ , %>
“Ta d€ mavra oiakiler Kepavvos, rovréort
karevObver’ Kepavvoy TO Tip Eywr TO ai@vior.
10 Aéyer 0€ Kat Ppdviov rovro ecivat TO Tv Kal
~ , ~ e vv * ~ \ pe d.'
THS OLOLKHOEWS TWY OAWY alTLOY* Kael O€ avTO
\
yvenopocbynyv Kal Kopov. Xpnopocbyyn O€ eorw
€ Ul , » eae) | € a a / la >
1) Olakoopynots KaT avToY, 9 O€ ExT@bpwots KOpOS
lA \ \ \ ~ bd \ a
“Tlavra yap, pnol, ro mvp emeNOov Kpwet Kal
33 > \ a
15 KaraAnwerat. Ev ode robtrpy rp Kedaralp
-~ 33 A / ~~ >]
“ravTa o§ov Tov ldvov voov e&€Oero. “Apa
~ \ ~ a
dé kal rov rns Nonrod aipécews Ou OAL ywr éx-
/ rs
édevEa ovK Ovta Xpiorov, ada ‘HpakdXeirov pa-
\ lod
Onrnv. Tov yap mp@rov Koopoy adrov Onu-
\ A \ ~
a0 0upyov Kal TouTny EeavTod yivopevoy ovrw
fai oe lee \ / ’ \ /
Aeyer’ “O eds neon, evppdrvyn, yee, Oépos,
/ rk lA ened by , oc
TOAELOS, ElonvN, KOpOS, Ayios. Tavaytia arar-
< ~ ~ \
Ta’ ovros 0 vows. ‘*’AdAoLtovrar O€ OKws TE
c , ~ , ’ lA Os |
okoray cupptyn Ovwpacw ovonalerar Kal 700-
\ Se og 33 \ XN ~ \ \
25 vv exaorov. Pavepoyv d€ Tact TOS vonTOVS
~ \ lon ¥
Noyrov dvaddyous Kat Tis aipécews TpooTaras,
b] . ee! Co / c \ \
et kat HpaxXeirov Neyowcay eavrovs pn yeyo-

11. Cod. xadeis. 24. érdray, sed dxas. 27. “ Scrib. vel

AeAovow vel Aéyouev.” Miller.

pevos TavTa eyv@Kéval, HKOVOE TE
ovdevds GAN adrov hy difnoacba
kal pabeiy ravra rap’ éavrov. Vide

10. ofdev ‘Hpdxderros dia mupds
, * ~ ,
kadbapow tav Kakas BeBiwKd-

TOV.

16. Ipsum sibi sufficere et om-
nia per seipsum explorata habu-
isse jactitabat Ephesius, teste
Laertio ix. 4. véos dv €packe pn-
Sev cidévar, rédevos peévror yevo-

etiam Philosophumena, p. 10. 54.
\ Ry s a , 3Q 7
autos pev ehacke mavra «idéevat,
tovs b€ ddovs avOparovs ovder.
26. ddAowodrar Se, dkas rep bKé-
ray ovpptyn Ovopaciy dvoudcerat

Heraclitus and Noétus. 241

things, that is, divects: meaning by Thunder ever-
lasting Fire. And he asserts that this Fire is intel-
ligent, and a cause of the administration of the Uni- 10
verse, and he calls it Appetite and Satiety. The
(systematic) adornment (of the Universe), accord-
ing to him, is Appetite, and the conflagration is
Satiety. For, says he, the Fire will come and judge
and consume all things. And in this summary he 15
propounded his own mind as all things collectively.
At the same time I have shown that the follower of
the heresy of Noetus is not the disciple of Christ,
but of Heraclitus. For Heraclitus thus affirms
that the first world was itself the artificer and 20
creator of itself; God is Day, Night; Winter,
Summer; War, Peace; Satiety, Hunger. Opposites
are every thing; this is the true sense. But they
undergo changes, as perfumes do, when, whatever
is thought agreeable to any individual, is mingled 25
with them.

It is evident to all, that the knowing successors
of Noetus, and the chief patrons of his heresy,
although they may assert that they have never
been disciples of Heraclitus, yet by adopting the 30

ka@ ndoviy éxdorov. Ita ex co-
dice Millerus. Pro cuppry? re-

27. Nonrods Nonrov diaddxous,
idem hic lusus mapovopacrixds

scripserim ouppeyy misceatur, et
pro vitioso "ONOMA’ZETAI lege-
rim °O NOMIZETAI, i. e. cum
misceatur odoramentis quodcumque
existimetur ad genium esse cujus-
cunque, et gustui ejus gratificatu-
rum.

in voce Noéfo, qui apud S. Hip-
pol. c. Noét. § 3. ai ypadpat dp-
Oas Aéyovow adda f Kal Noénros
voet, ov On dé ei Nénros pr) voei
mapa tovto éxBAnroe ai ypadai.
Vide etiam ibid. § 8. ri mpds rad-
Ta vonret Nénros j4) vody Thy adn-

R

242 Philosophumena.

/ b 4. 3 ~ a : ,
vévat axpoaras, adda ye [ra] r@ Nonr@ dokavra
4 / > \ -~ c ~~ /
aipovpevovs avapavoov, tavra oporoyev. Aé-
: \ oA a \ \ + pout | \ >
30 yovot yap oUvTws eva Kal Tov adrov Oedy eivat
4, \ \ / b , \
TAaVTWY OnplovpyoY Kal TaTepa, evooknoavra OE
/ ~ , ~
me~nvevar rots apynOey dikatois dvtra adparor.
oe \ \ b) CoA 5 >/ oo ae
Ore pev yap ovy opara: iy abparos, aywpnros
\ oo \ = / \ \ oo ~
P.284 0€ ore pn ywpetaOar OedeL, ywpyros Oe OTE ywpel-
v4 \ \ as, ' / > ,
rat. Ovrws Kata Tov avrov dyorv aKparyros,
> / b] \ a €
ayévnros, aavaros Kai Ovnrds. lds ody Hpa-
_ \
KNelrov of rovovrot OeryOjoovrar paOyrai; py
qn 4 >
5 avTy TH A€EEEL OiapOdcas Ediiooddyncer 0 Xko-
7 Ss /
rewos; “Ort 0€ kal tov adroy vidy eivat héyer
\ r In \. ?D < / te mae:
Kal jwarépa ovdets ayvoet. Aéyer 0€ oUTWS* OTE
\ > / \ \
ev ody pn yeyévnto O mario, Oikatws tarp
Bi ¢ \ IO7 / €
mopoonyopevto. Ore d€ nuddknoev yéveow vmo-
~ \ > € a
10 petvat, yevnOels O vids eyévero adros Eeavrod,
_ /
ovy erépov. Odbrws yap Coxe? povapylay ovy-
cas a
\oTay, Ev Kal TO avro pdoKwy drdpyew TmaTepa

\ e\ , > cv >] ew f > >]
Kal vliov, KaXovpEvov ovy ETepoy e& ETEpov, AAA

28. ‘Add. rad. Vel 7r@ in ra mutandum.” Miller. 32. Cod.
menKevat. 2. In cod. dxparnros bis scriptum. 5. Cod.
7H TH

pnde eEer. 8. Cod. un yevnro.

decay; Hine Callistum, Noétia- permeayit, qui Noétianos insen-
nam impietatem heresim novis _ satos appellant, vide Philastr. He-
quibusdam additamentis ador- res. in voce.

nantem, Theodoretus tradit ém167- 31. radra dpodoyeiv. Legendum
kas Twas €mivonoatr tH Svoce- _radra pro radra quivis viderit.
Beia tod Sdéyparos, Heeret. Fab. 32. Post otras interpungen-

iii. 3. Lusus etiam ad Latinos dum.

Noétus. 243

dogmas of Noetus, avow the same tenets with
Heraclitus. For they say thus, that one and the
same God is the Maker and Father of all things,
and that when it pleased Him, He revealed himself
to the righteous from the beginning, being invisible. 35
For when He is not seen He was invisible, and in-
comprehensible when He is not willing to be com- P.284
prehended ; but comprehensible when He is compre-
hended. Thus, according to the same argument,
He is incomprehensible and comprehensible; unborn
and born; immortal and mortal. How will not 5
these persons be proved to be Scholars of Heraclitus ?
Has not the Obscure Metaphysician anticipated them
by philosophizing in their very words? For every
one knows that he, Noetus, calls the same both Son
and Father. For he speaks thus; When the Father 10
had not been born, He was rightly called Father.
But when it pleased Him to undergo birth, then by
birth He became the Son of Himself, and not of
another. Thus he professes to establish the principle
of Monarchianism, saying, that one and the same 15
Essence is called by the two names, Father and Son,
not one born from the other, but Himself born from

3. Cod. dxpdrnros, drxpatnros,
ayévnros, a@dvaros. Ex tenore
sententiarum patet esse legen-
dum dxparnros xpatnros, ayévn-
TOS, Yyevnros.

ll. mpoonydpevro-
T™ poonyopevero.

15. Tertullian. c. Praxeam, 3.

Mallem

“ Duos et tres Deos jam jactitant
a nobis preedicari quasi non et
Unitas irrationaliter collecta he-
resim faciat, et Trinitas ration-
aliter expensa veritatem consti-
tuat. Monarchiam (inquiunt) te-
nemus.”

16. mar€pa xai vidy, kaAovpevor

R22

244 Narrative

» Meo, > € ~ ’ , ‘\ / \ €\
avTov €& EavTov, OvopmaTt pey TaTeépa Kal vio
/ \ 7 \ sf ‘ >
15 xadobpevoy Kara ypdvwr tpomny, eva Oe eivat
a / /
rovroy Tov avévra, kal yéveow éK Trap0évov
\ > >
vropelvavta, Kal ev avOporots avOpwroy ava-
/ \ ‘ € A ~
oTpapévra, viov pev eavrov Trois dpw@ow opo-
lan \ \ 4 , / ~
Noyovrvra Ova THY yevomerny yeveow, TaTépa OE
> \ ~ ~ a". =9 n
20 €ival Kal Tots ywpovow pn aroxpbavra. Tov-
- / / \ € a A
tov wa0er EvoV MPooTAayevTAa Kal EavT@ TO
oe \
mvevua Tapaddvra, aro0avévra Kal pn amoOa-
~ / b
vovTa, Kal Eavrov TH TplTy Huépa avacrnoarra,
\ > , / \ / /
Tov ev punpelw tapevra Kat Oyyy TewWHETA,
\ isd 4 ~ \ ~ ¢
25 Kal AoW KaTaTayevTa, TovTOY TOY TaY OwY
> / / \
Oedv wal marépa eivar éyer KAXeomévns Kal o
>
robrov yopos, HpaxXelretov oxdros emevodyovres
To\AXots. |
> ;
Tabrnv tiv aipeow expdrvve KddXuoros,
\ an \
s0avip éy Kakia mavovpyos Kat motkidos mpos
rod ’ a
tAavHy, Onpwpevos Tov THs EntoxoTys Opdvor.
~ : aed
Tov Zedupivoy, avdpa idiarny Kal aypapparov
ees 3 wo
Kal areipov TOY ExKAnolacTiKOY pwr, dy TEelOwy
> / >
Odypact kal araithoeow areipnpevas Hyev eis
\ tA
350 €BodbXero, dvra OwporAnnTny Kat piiapyupor,

18. Cod. dvaorpeperta. 30. mrotkidos et Onpdpevos. 35. Cod.
& BovXero.

ovx €repoy €& Erépov. Ita Mille- 3. rovrov kai vidv dvopdfovor Kat
rus, sed interpunctione mutaté marépa mpos tas xpeias TovTo Ka-
legendum 7. x. vidy kadovpevov,—. —KElvO KaAOUpEvoY.

Vide Theodoret. Her. Fab. iii. 26. rovrov mabe EvAov Tpoo-

concerning the Church of Rome. 245

Himself, and called by the name of Father or Son,
according to the change of times, but that He is
one, He who was manifested to the world, and 20
who deigned to undergo birth of a Virgin, and
conversed as man with man, and who to those that
beheld Him confessed Himself to be a Son, on
account of His birth, but who also did not conceal
that He was a Father from those Who received 25
Him. That He suffered, having been nailed to the
Cross, and that having commended His Spirit to
Himself, and having died and not died, and having
on the third day raised Himself, Who had been
buried in the tomb, and wounded with the lance, 30
and pierced with nails, that He is the God of the
Universe and Father—so says Cleomenes and his
school, who thus envelop many with the darkness of
Heraclitus.

Ca.uistus strengthened this heresy; a man crafty 35
in evil, and versatile in deceit, aspiring to the chair
of the Episcopate. He influenced ZEpHyRINus, who
was an unlearned and illiterate person, and unskilled
in Ecclesiastical Science, and whom, being a re-
ceiver of bribes and covetous, Callistus led as he 40
pleased, persuading him by dogmas and unlawful
demands; him, Callistus was ever instigating to

mayevra. Ita Codex. Legere de Noéto, et de Callisto, dicturus

mallem rotrov mwadeiv, EvA@ — est Hippolytus in compendio sive

mpoomayevTa. avaxepadatocet, lib. x. pp. 329,
35. Comparanda sunt que infra 330.

246 Narrative

v pe, | ’ ~ >] 4 ~
P.285 emewOevy aet ordacets en Parety avapecov Tar

b] ~ p eae: Ava? / /- ¢
A0EAPOV, aVTOS TA aupdrEepa pépn VoTEpoY KEp-
\ c ~
kwmelos Adyous TpO0s Eavrov dirlay KaracKeva-
Z \ ~ \ aN AG) NE ¢
wy, Kal Trois pev adjOevay éywv Spora po-
cot \ > € , \ v4 lanl ’ 4 ry
5 vovet wore KaO ydlay ra Opota Ppovety nrara
qn \ Ud
radw © avrois ta LaBedrXiov opotws, dy Kat
ak Ie) 4 a 3 \
avrov e€é€arnce Ovvapevoy karop9ovv. Ev yap
~ a ~ >
T> od pov mapaweicOar odvK eaxAnpbvero’
Coa > > ~
qvica 0€ adv T@ KadXloty epovaler, ox adbrod
b / \ \ , \ / Lae4
10 aveceleTo Tp0s TO Odypa TO KXeopevovs pérety,
, 1. ~ € \ , X\
daoKxovros Ta opota doovety. O de rore per
\ , b] ~ > aay 4 = \
THY Tavoupylay avTov OvK Evdel, avis dE EyVa,
?
ws Omynhoopar per od odd. Adrov dé rov
‘ ” r
Zehupivoy mpodywv Onpocia emeiMe éyew
> aa ae
15"Eyo oi0a Eva Oedv Xpiorov “Inooty, Kal mAqy
>] ~ a7 b] / \ \ 4 \
avTov ETEpoy Ovdeva yevnTroy Kal taOnrov. Lore
b \ > 4 }
dé Néywv, Ovy 0 marnp améOavev, adda Oo vids,
oUrws amavoToy Ty ordow ev TO a@ OLeETH-
eX ~
pnoey, 00 Ta vohwata yvovTes pets od ovvEXu-
~ / >
20 poopev, eheyyovTes Kal avtiuafiordpevor Orep

1. Cod. dvapéoov. 3. Cod. xepxarois. ib. Cod. éavrove¢
didiav. 4. Fort. rois pev €v ddnOeia. Miller. ib. Fort. Aéyov
Ta Gpo.a poveivy nara’ maddy S€ avrots Ppovota. more kar idiay ra
a8. Miller. 7. Leg. videtur Suvdpevos. Miller. 10. Cod.
parrety correxit Millerus. 20. Cod. edreyxorres.

3. rots pév dAnOevay Aéyov Guoca ~=606s MSS.._—s“ Pro vitioso KA@” “HAT’AN
povotow moré xa@ diay ra legendum conjecerim KAT’ *IAE-
dpota povety ymara: madww 8 ai- AN, i.e. sub specie vel colore si-
Tois Ta ZaBeAXiov dpoiws. Ita milia sentiendi. Tales heereti-

concerning the Church of Rome. 247

introduce strife among the brethren; and_ then P.285
Callistus himself swayed both sides by wily words
to incline to his own interest; and at one time speak-
ing true doctrine to the one party, who held like
sentiments (to the truth), he, under pretence of 5
agreeing with them, deluded them; and at another
time speaking with similar language (of duplicity) to
those who held the doctrine of Sabellius, whom also
himself he made to fall, when he was able to keep
him right. For when Sabellius was exhorted by me 10
he was not obstinate, but when he was alone with
Callistus, he was instigated by him (professing to be
of his opinion) to incline to the doctrine of Cleo-
menes. Sabellius did not then perceive his subtlety,
but afterwards he discovered it, as I will shortly tell. 15
Callistus putting Zephyrinus himself forward pub-
licly induced him to say, “ I know one God, Christ
Jesus, and beside Him I know none, who was born
and suffered.” But he (Callistus) sometimes saying

“ Not the Father suffered, but the Son,” thus kept 20
alive the strife without respite among our people. But
we perceiving his devices did not give place to him,
confuting him and resisting him for the Truth’s sake.

corum prestigias tangit Lrenzeus,
iii. 17. “Similia loquentes fide-
libus non solum dissimilia sapiunt
sed et contraria, et per omnia
plena blasphemiis per que inter-
ficiunt eos qui per similitudinem
verborum dissimile affectionis eo-
rum in se attrahunt venenum.”

Pro avrois recté Bunsenius (i. p.
132) ad rots.

8. Novatian. de Trin. 12.
“ Quid dubitant cum Sabellii te-
meritate misceri qui Christum
Patrem dicit?” Pro dvvdpevov
recté Millerus duvdpevos.

248 Philosophumena.

aad > > ~~
Tas adnOeias’ Os eis amdvoray ywpoy diva TO
a ~ 4 no
Tavras avTov Ty UToKplaoe. GuvTpeye, Has Oe
b] ~~ , >] q
od, amexdder Tpas dvWéous, eLeuayv mapa Biav
\ > ~ ’ roe ine De 4 \ ,
Tov Evoonvyovvra avTw lov. Tobrov roy Biov
oy thes bd \ bd / ’ \ \ \
25 Ooket nuiy ayamnrov exOecQal, emet Kata Tov
- ales , Cc oA ? , ce \ a ~
avrov ypovoy nuiv eyeydvel, OTS Ola TOU Pari-
~ \ > \
val Tov ToLovToV THY avacTpodny, everriyyworos
Kal Tayeta Tots vovy Exovow evOns yévnrat H Ova
>] / b
TobTov emueyeionpevn aipeois. Ovros enapro-
pee, | an bd , wv € /
30 pynoey emt Povokiavod emapyov dvros Pepys.
€ \ , ~ > ~ / / >
O d€ rpdros Tis avTov papruptas ToLOodE Hy.
/ b
Oixérns erbyyave Kaproddpov rwos avdpds
~ > ~~ 4 > me of / t
TisTov Ovros Ek THS Kaicapos oixias. Tobrw o
\ ~ ~
Kaprodépos, are 01) ws mioT@, ypnpa odK OAL yor
; 9 yA .
KaretloTevoev, ETayyeldpevos KEpdos Tpogot-
b] , [ie \
5 oe €K Tpayparelas TpameCiriKns’ Os aBav
> ~ 7 ~
Tpamelay emeyelpnoev ev TH Eyomery TiokKIVG
TouTALKy, @ ovK OAlyat mapabjKat Te ypdv@
> / oN ~ A Bi a ,
extorevOnoay vro ynpoyv Kal adeXPov mpocyh-

23. Cod. mapaBiay.
eTLKEXELPN EVAL.

24. Cod. évdoporxovvra. 29. Cod.

29. draws everiyv@ortos Kal Ta-
xeia Tois voty €xovow "EYOH =
yemra. ItaMS. Millerus evOds,
et aliud adjectivum in rayeta la-
tere. arbitratur. Hereticorum
commenta ab Hippolyto nostro
exagitantur non tantum ut odio
et execratione digna, sed ut ridi-
cule et. aniles fabulee idedque
ludibrio habende. Vide sup.

279, 7. 6ras xarappornbacw: et
aipéoets katayeAdorous, inf. 334,
35. Mihi igitur in mentem venit
kat TA’XA Trois vovy €xovow EY H-
OHS yeryrat, i.e. ut facilis cog-
nitu sit, et fortasse fatua pruden-
tioribus, 7. e. eorum sententia.

4. émayyeW\dpevos képdos mpoc-
Legendum potius vide-
Cf. supra,

oie.
tur é Aape
errayyethapev@.

Callistus.

249

Then being driven to infatuation, because all others

went along with him in his hypocrisy but I did not, 95

he used to call me a ditheist, disgorging violently
the venom which was harboured within him.

This man’s life it seems to me fit to narrate, since
he was contemporary with me; in order, that, by the

manifestation of his conversation, the Heresy which 30

was broached by him may become easy of cognizance
to those who have sense, and haply may be regarded

as childish by them.

He was a martyr, when Fuscianus was Prefect of

Rome.
follows ;

He was servant of a certain Carpophorus, a P.286

And the manner of his martyrdom was as 35

Christian of Czesar’s household. Carpophorus en-
trusted him, as a Christian, with a considerable sum
of money, professing that he would bring him gain

from the occupation of a banker.

He set up a bank 5

in the piscina publica, and in course of time many
deposits were entrusted to him by widows and
brethren, through the influence of the name of Car-

Philosoph. 261. 19. dpay éray-
yeMovrat tupA@rtrovres profiten-
tur se videre, etsi ceecutiant.

6. Nondum, ut videtur, leges
illee ab Ecclesia fuerant latee, que
rem fcenerariam Christianis in-
terdicebant, et pecuniam ex usu-
ris conquisitam abominari jube-
bant. Tertullianus quidem lib. iv.
c. Marcionem. “ Percurre ait
sequentia Ezekielis de viro justo.
Pecuniam suam feenori non dedit,
et quod abundaverit non sumet,

foenoris scilicet redundantiam, que
est usura.” Hine, temporis pro-
cessu, primum in Clericos foene-
ratores, deinde etiam in laicos,
peenas irrogavit Ecclesia; Can.
Nicen. 17. Arelat. i. c.12. Are-
lat. ii. c. 14, Eliberit. c. 20. Tu-
ron. i. c. 13. Vide que de hac
re fusé et exquisité disseruit, se-
culi nostri genio non admodum
placitura, Preesul eruditissimus L.
Andrewes. Lond. 1629.

250 Philosophumena.

‘O dé é£adpavicas ra

, b] , « ~ 2 > v ;
10 wavTa nrope. Ov ravra mpatarTos, ovK EduTrEV

pate Tov’ Kaprodépov.

Os anayyethky TP Kapropdpw’ 6 dé edn arat-
~ > | ~~ ~
rely NOyovs Tap avrov. Tatra ovyler Oo
A \ a
Kd\Xuoros Kal rov mapa Tov Oeordrov kivdvvoy
€ , b] / \ \ \ ,
vpopwpevos, arédpa THY duynv kara Oadacoay
4 . a 4 \ ~ > ~ , df
15 ToLovpevos’ Os Evpwy Trotoyv Ev Tm IlopTw Eror-
) \ xe, ,
pov mpos avaywynyv, omov erbyyave méwv,
? fa
AX’ ode obrws NaGeiv

deddynrar’ od yap édumev Os amayyeldky TO

b] / ,
avepn mAEVoOMEVos.
Kapropépw ro yeyevnpévov. “O o€ émuords
\ / b] os =~ ~
20 kara TOY Améva, ErEiparo Erl TO TAOCtOY OppLay

\ / la babes /
kara peunvupeva. Tovro 0€ nv €oros ev péow
~ / lon \ /
TO Aye, TOU de ropOpéws Boaddvovros, wv
7 ; ‘
moppwOev 0 KddXtoros Tov deordrny, oy ev TO
trolw Kat yvods Eavroy cuvnreipOat, nheldnce -
a5T0v Chyv Kal €oyara ravra Noyioapevos Eppiper
c \ > \ , € A ~~
eavtov eis Thy OadXacoayv. Oi O€ vavrat KaTa-
, + \ , ” 26 3% 4
TnOnoavTes els Ta oKadn akovra avrov avei-
loa ‘ a a

Aovro. Tov 0€ amo ris yns peydda Booyrwr,
\ < van lA \ > , 5)
Kal ovTos T@ OeordTy Tapadobels ErxravinyOn Eis
10. Cod. deurev, sed €duzeyv bis infra lin.

‘21. “In peunvvpeva, syllabee pny exesee tenuia
Miller. 23. Cod. aéppodev.

9. Cod. eapavncas.
18, et 21, p. 287.
vestigia supersunt.”

ll. 6 8€ ey draireiv Adyous
post dmareiv excidisse videtur ap.

17, Srov ériyxave whéwv. Ita
Cod. Lege aéov.

18. ov« yap €Avuwe—In hac for-

mula, ter repetita, salsa queedam
ironia videtur inesse, qua innuatur
Callistum malo quodam genio fu-
isse exagitatum, qui ejus vestigiis
insisteret et eum, tanquam umbra,

Callistus. 251

pophorus. But Callistus embezzled them all, and
became bankrupt. And when he was in this plight, 10
tidings did not fail to reach Carpophorus, who said
that he would call him to account. When Callistus
perceived this, and apprehended the danger which
threatened him from his master, he ran away, taking
flight toward the sea; and having found a ship at 15
Portus ready to sail, he embarked with a purpose to
sail withersoever the vessel might be bound. But
not even thus could he escape: for the news did not
fail to reach the ears of Carpophorus. And _ he,
standing on the shore, endeavoured, according to the 20
information he had received, to make for the ship,
which was in the middle of the harbour. But when
the boatman (who was to ferry Carpophorus) was
lingering, Callistus, being in the ship, saw his master
from a distance, and perceiving himself to be caught, 25
hazarded his life, and, thinking that all was now over
with him, he threw himself into the sea. But the
sailors having leapt into the boats drew him out,
against his will. And while those who were on the
shore raised a great shout, he was delivered to his 30

semper persequeretur. Cete-
rium ex hac et similibus loquendi
formulis quee in hac narratione pas-
sim obviez sunt recté statuitur,
Auctoris nostri stylum etsi Greecia
vel Asia oriundi Latinum dicendi
colorem imbibisse, eumque ipsum
lingua, ut par est credere, aliquan-
tulum fBeBapBapdcba, xpdérov
vr’ ev BapBapors.

19. Locum sic interpunge :
émreiparo eri TO mAotoy 6ppay kara
Ta peunvupeva, Tovto b€ Hv éords
€v péo@ TO Aye’ Tod S€ rropb-
péws Bpaddvoyros x.T.A.

25. Pro vitiosa lectione Co-
dicis oummAcipOa restituendum
cvveAnpéa, confusio orta ex syl-
labarum énopevia, uberrimo fonte
mendarum, quibus libri scatent

252 Philosophumena.

\ tm re @ ¢ ' ’ , ;
307” Pwpnv’ ov o Oeororns els mioTpLvoY KarT-
/ \
éGero. Xpdvov de dvedOdvros, ws covpBatver
: |
ylyvecOat, mpocedOdvres adeXdol mapexadovy
tov Kaproddpoy orws e~ayayy tis Kohdoews
\ / , Bae, | t ~ v
Tov Oparerny, PackovTes avTov omodoyeliy Exe
~~ ’ c \
P.287 Tapa Tot yonwa aroKkeipevoy. O de Kaprodo-
\ — / ~
pos ws evraPis, ToD pev idiov Edeyev adeudety,
a ‘ ~ ~
tov d€ mapaOnkay dpovriZew* modXol yap adT@
3 / 5 ~
amekalovro NéyorTes, Sti TH avTov Toocyhpmare
> , ~ , “A , ®
5entorevoavy 7~ KadXiory, a wemiorebKetoay
> ~~
Kat mevoQels ExéNcvoev eEayayetv avrov. “O oe
N ,
pnoev Eywv arod.wWévat, kal radw arodwWpdoKew
\ , \ ‘ - Pix; ,
pun Ovvapevos Ova TO PpovpeioOa, reyvnv Oava-
? s : \ s , ae? 7
Tov erevonoe Kal caBBaTw oxnapevos amevat
: |
10s Eml ypeworas, Wpnoey Ent THY cvVaywyY
~ >
tov lovdaiwy ovvnypévov, Kat oTds KaTeoTa-
, 7 on c \ / Wet
ciaucevy avrov. Oi o€ KaracraciacQEevTes UT
3 ~ bd 4 2 eee \ \ > 4
avTov, EvuBpioavTes avTOY Kal TANyas EuHopn-
U
gavTes, Eovpov emt tov Povoxiavoy eErapyoy
~~ >
15 Ovra THs Toews. “Amexpivayro dé rade’ “Pw-
_ ~ \ 7
patot ovveywpncav nuiv Tovs TaTpwovs vd-
> : Os >
povs Onnocia avaywwaokew* ovros 0€ éretoed-

oes i é
Owov exodXve KatacTactdlwy nov, PaoKkwy eivat

4. Cod. rg airg. 8. Cod. POopeicOa. 9. Cod. oxeydpevos. ©

presertim recentiores, qualis hic sacra liberé colentibus Czesarea-
est Codex Parisinus. niorum edictorum indulgentia
17. De Judeis Rome patria videri potest Joseph. Antiqq.

Callistus. 253

master and brought back to Rome: where his master
confined him in the pistrinum. In course of time,
as is wont to be the case, certain brethren came to
Carpophorus and besought him to release his run-
away slave from punishment, saying that he declared 35
that he had money vested in the hands of certain
persons. Carpophorus, like a pious man, said that p.287
he did not care for his own money, but that he was
anxious for the deposits; for many bewailed them-
selves to him, saying that it was by reason of his
name that they confided to Callistus what they had 5
entrusted to him. Being thus persuaded, he ordered
him to be released. But having nothing to pay, and
not being able to run away again, on account of being
watched, he devised a plan for his own destruction.
On a Saturday, under pretence of going to his 10
debtors, he went to the Synagogue of the Jews, who
were assembled init; and he stood there and made an
uproar against them. And they being thus disturbed
abused him and beat him, and dragged him before
Fuscianus, prefect of the city. 15
And thus they said. “The Romans have given
us leave to read the Law of our Fathers in public.
But this man here came in and interrupted us, say-

publicum exercitium interdicens.

xix. 10, que vim obtinuisse vi-
dentur usque ad Severum Sep-
timium, qui ‘“ Judeos fieri sub
gravi poend vetent,” teste Spar-
tiano, c. 17. Non tamen ille Ju-
deis ipsis jam hereditaria vel
patria successione religioni sua

Post Severi dominationem Ju-
dais favebat Elagabalus. Lam-
prid. c. 3, et Severus Alexander
Judzis privilegia _reservavit.
Lamprid. c. 22.

254 Philosophumena.

Xptoriavés. Tod dé Povoxiavod mpd Biparos
- \ a 4 » ee A ,

20 TVyYavorToS, Kat Tots UT Lovdalwy Neyomevots
\ a / > ~ > v7
kara Tov KaXXiorov ayavakrovyros, ovK eXtTrev

£ > / = / p ees /
0 exayyethas rm Kaprodépy ra mpaccépeva.
c \ , Vi1 (fave me pit srl G
O dé oreboas emt ro Bina Tov Exdpyou eBda

X ~~

Agopat, kbpie Povociave, pn od adt@ rloreve,

> 7~“~
2500 yap eort Xpioriaves, apoppny d€ Cnret Oava-
4.9 :
Tov ypnpwara pov ToAda adavicas, ws anodeléw.
Tov dé *lovdaiwy vroBorny rovro vosicavror,
ws Cyrovvtos Tov Kapropépov rabry ry mpopa-
cer e€eAéoOat avrov, paddov éxipOdvws xar-

, Ue c \ a. ee ee
30 €Bdwy Tov exapyov. O dé Kiwnfels Or adbror,
v
pacriy@oas avrov, EdwKer eis jréraddov Lapoo-
4 \ / be RS Ss hes, Se
vias. Mera ypdvoy dé erépwy eet dvTwy pap-
5) 4

riépwv Oedjcaca » Mapkia Epyov ru ayabov
épydcacbat, otca PirdQeos wadd\axn Kopddov,

19. Cod. dockiavod. 24, Cod. pi éavro. 34. Cod. madakn.

82. Fodinis ferri celebrem fu- § Hippolytus presbyter exilio sunt
isse Sardiniam satis notum ex deputati (deportati) ab Alexandro
Rutilii Itinerario, lib. |. “Que in Sardiniam, insulam Bucinam
de Sardoo cespite massa fluit.” (nocivam).” Id quod Anastasius
Hinc hodie “ Ferraria” urbs Sar- de vitis Pontif. in v. Pontiani
dinize de qua Cluverius ii. c. xi. factum fuisse tradit Severo et
Sardiniam pestifero aére infamem § Quintiano Coss. h. e. a.p. 235.
fuisse tradit Claudianus, B. Gild. | Maximino Thrace jam annum
v. 514, monente Cluverio. Huc primum imperante, quo anno Pon-

martyras fuisse deportatos, ip- tianus in Sardinia mortem obiisse
sumque in his (uti creditur) sanc- _dicitur iv. Kal. Octobres.

tum Hippolytum, ex Chronicis et 34. De Marcia Dio Cassius,
Martyrologiis constat. Catalog. Ixxii. 4 Mapxia tis, Kovdparou
Felician. § 6. “Eodem tempore av rére ovevOevrwy évis mah-

Pontianus Episcopus (Rome) et Aaxy, kai "ExAextos mpédxoiros, 6

Callistus. 255

ing that he is a Christian.” Fuscianus being seated
on the bench, and being exasperated by what the 20
Jews said against Callistus, tidings did not fail to
come to the ears of Carpophorus. He hastened to
the tribunal of the Prefect, and exclaimed, “ I
entreat thee, my Lord Fuscianus, do not believe
him, for he is not a Christian, but seeks an occasion 25
of death, having embezzled much money of mine, as
I will show.” But the Jews thought this was a sub-
terfuge, as if Carpophorus desired to extricate him
by this plea, and clamoured more vehemently in
the ears of the Prefect. And he, being urged by 30
them, scourged Callistus, and sentenced him to the
mines in Sardinia.

But after a time, there being other Martyrs there,
Marcia the Concubine of (the Emperor) Commodus,
being a religious woman and desirous of doing a 35

pev Kat tod Koppodov mpoxoiros 7
dé (Mapkia) maddaxi éyévero Kal
rod Ex\éxrov pera Tadra yur, kai
emeide Kat exeivous Biaiws dmobvn-
oxovras* ioropeira: 5€ airy modAd
Te Uréep TOY Xptotiavay oTov-
Sdoa kai. woAda adrods evepyetn-
kévat dre kal mapa Kopupdd@ may
Svvapevn. Marciam, Commodi
Imperatoris concubinam, deinde
interfectricem, ab Hippolyto vo-
cari qdidobeoy fortasse mireris :
sed hoc, ut opinor, et uti jam
docuit censor Arnoldianus, (p.
591) cipwvxés scripsit noster.
Quo, queris, animo? eodem for-

tasse quo Carpophorum pium
hominem sed tamen fceneratorem,
et Hyacinthum presbyterum sed
tamen spadonem, dixisse videtur,
ut Ecclesie disciplinam tum tem-
poris nutantem tacité notaret.
35. Ceeterum hic lector memi-
nerit quid in tali re statuerit Ec-
clesia, Hippolyto nostro cozta-
nea; nisi interpolatricem manum
passa sit in illo capite mapddoois
’Arroorohuxn d1a‘Irrodvrov, p. 254,
ed. Fabr. Tad Aaxn twos adriorov
SovAn exeiva pdve cxordfovca
mpoabdexéo Oa, ei d€ kai mpds dAXovs
daedyaivet, droBaddéo ba. . .

256 Philosophumena.

/ \ , > Se ”
P.288 MpockaAeocapern TOY paKkapioy Odikropa, ovra
> ~ > > > ~ ~
extoxorov tis Exxc\nolas car ێxeivo Katod,
> / V4 > hd , , c
exnopwra tives elev Ev Lapdovia paprupes. ~O
‘\ > \ ~
d€ wavrwyv avadovs Ta bvopara, TO Tov Kad-
, b) ” 7s \ \ / b]
5Nicrov ovK EdwKEr, EL\0OWS TA TETOALHMEVA TAP
avrov. Tvyxovoa ovv ris atimoews 1 Mapkia
~ b
Tapa Tov Kopddov, didwot thy arodvaluny ém-
\ /
orodny YaxivOy rivl omddovrs mpeoBurépy, Os
\ , \ \
AaBwv dverrevoev eis THY Sapdoviay, Kal amo-
\ ~ > ~ onl lon >
10 Oovs TH KaT EKEivo KaIpOd THs ywpas émITpO-
4 b 7 \ , \ ~
TEVOVTL, ATENVGE TOVS LapTUpAas, TAY TOU Kad-
~ \
Alorov. ‘O d€ yovureray kal daxpboy ixéreve
\ > Bes" ~ 3 a \ io
Kal avros ruyelv arodbcews. Avaownrnbeis ody
¢ a > /
0 “YdxwOos a&tot rov éxirporoy pdcoxwv Opébas
15 civat Mapkias, racodpevos adt@ To axivdvvor.
X > / ec
‘O dé weicOels améAXvoE Kal Tov Kdd\Xorov" od
/ € LA , v Ae -
Tapayevomevov 0 Ovixkrwp mavy nyOero ext TO
VRC Ga, fase Rae, Oe > ey ;
yeyovort’ add ere evordayyvos Hy, novyace
: ; |
duAracobpevos O€ Tov UTO ToAA@Y SveELoY (od
> \ ’ lo / li
20 yap Hv pakpav Ta OT avrov reroApnpeva), Ert
\ \ a , b , /
dé kal tov Kaproddpov avriminroytos, mépuret
es | / J ? , eran | > ~
avrov karapeve ev AvOely, opicas adr@ py-

5. Cod ra roApnpeva. 22. “ Fort. "Avrio. Certe Antium dicere
videtur.” Miller. :

8. Spadones (dad éavréy et- Apostol. 21. Conc. Nicen. ¢. 1.
vovxtaGevras) ad sacros ordines relat. ii. 7.
promoveri postea vetitum Canon. 15. Codicis lectionem ddckay

Callistus. 257

good work, having sent for Victor, of blessed memory, P.288
who was then Bishop of the Church, enquired of
him what martyrs were in Sardinia. He presented
all their names, but did not tender the name of
Callistus, knowing the crimes that had been per- 5
petrated by him. Marcia having obtained her suit
from Commodus, gives the letter of release to a cer-
tain Hyacinthus, an eunuch, a presbyter, who having
received it, sailed to Sardinia, and having delivered
it to the then Governor of the Island, released the 10
martyrs,—except Callistus.

But he fell down before him, and end and prayed
that he might be released. Hyacinthus then being
moved, desires the Governor to set him free, saying
that he himself had brought up Marcia, and pro- 15
mising him indemnity. He, being persuaded, liber-
ated Callistus also. But when he reached Rome,
Victor was much distressed by what had taken
place, but, being a kind-hearted man, he held his
peace; but guarding against the obloquy from many, 20
(for the crimes of Callistus were recent,) and because
Carpophorus still urged his charge (against Callistus),
he sent him to abide at Antium, settling on him

Opéas eivat Mapkias, vitiosam
censent Millerus et Bunsenius
(i. p. 130), hic legendum conjec-
tans pdokwv éavT@ pev Todro ém-
rpeyvrac Mapkiay 1rd racoopevor,
ait@ b¢ eivar axivdvvoy. Sed hoc
tuum tentamen, vir doctissime,
est librum refingentis, non cor-
ruptelam sanantis. Preterea

Codicis lectio est prorsus sanis-
sima. Participium @péyas Map-
kias. dicitur pro nomine sub-
stantivo rpodeds Mapkias, ut
Opéyas airay in cippo sepul-
chrali apud Schaefer ad Greg.
Corinth. p. 614. Vide etiam Lo-
beck. ad Soph. Ajac. 358, p. 277,
qui exemplorum affatim dabit.

s

258

Narrative

~ . bd Ci ~
viaioy te extpodas’ weO od Kolunow Zedupivos

a \ \ \ /
cvvapajevov GAUTOV GYWY TOPOS TV KATAOTAOGLW

= UA ee? ~ a7 lod \ 5
25T0U KAnpov eErinoe TH Lolw KaK@, Kal TOUTOY

-~ 3
erayuyov aro tov Av@elov eis TO KoumnrnoLtoy
plerayay pnTne

/ e > \N \ \ \ 4
Karéornoev. ‘Qu aet ovvwv, kat Kabws POdcas

~ € 4 2A / > 4
mpoelrov VroKkpice avrov Oeparebwr e€epavice

pnre kptvat Ta Neyopeva Ovvdpevov pre voodyra

~ ’ ~~
30 Tv TOU KadXiorov eriBovdny, ravta adT@ Tos

a NOEeTo OptAovyTos.

\ \ ~
Ovrw pera thy Tov Ledv-

, 2 \ / / e 9 a
olvov TreXeuTny vomiCwy rervynKkevat ov EOnparo,

P.289 rov VaBéAdAoy aréwoev ws pu) Hoovotyra op0es,

23. “ Erat a prima m. exrpopi’s. Corrigendum eis rpodds.” Miller.

ib. Cod. kipnow.

ib. Cod. Zepupivoy
“exesis, quarum prior o fuisse cognoscitur : ovapdevov.”

. . apdpevoy, “ duabus literis
Miller.

24, pnvaioy. Auctor Parvi La-
byrinthi idem qui noster Hippoly-
tus apud Euseb. v. 28. dvereioOn
6 Nardduos tr’ airay emi cadapio
ériokxorros KAnp@Onvar ravtns THs
aipécews ote hapBavewv trap’ av-
Tov pynviata Syvapia éxaroy Trev-
THKOVTA. :

25. xoiynow,—contra infra, v.
832, Zepupivov redevtyv, unde
satis liquet Zephyrinum non mar-
tyrio animam efflasse, quod con-
tra recentiores Martyrologiorum
consarcinatores monere fas sit.

26. avréy ad Carpophorum re-
fert vir eruditus in Censura Ar-
noldiana, p. 592. Sed ad Cal-
listum potius retulerim, ut adrdv
et avr@ duobus supra versibus de
Callisto indubié dictum. Quod

Tovroyv perayayav de Callisto quo-
que addiderit id non sine ludibrio
factum—hunc hominem !

27. mpdos thy KATA'’STASIN
rov KAH’POY. An legendum
KATASXESIN? Elementa a et
e, T et W sepe confunduntur.
Dixit Ireneus (iii. 3) rov tis
émxonjs KATE'XEI KAH°PON
’"EdevOepos* vide eundem i. 28;
fortasse Noster hoe vult, Ze-
phyrinum Callisti opera esse usum
ad sedem suam obtinendam.

29. De ccemeteriis Christia-
norum non tantum inhumationis
causa usitatis, sed ad divina officia
peragenda, et sacros ccetus cele-
brandos, idedque ad scholas ha-
bendas, vide Baronium ad a.p.
226. 258. 260. 262. De Callisti

concerning the Church of Rome.

a monthly allowance for his maintenance.

259
After

Victor had fallen asleep in death, Zephyrinus having 25
had him (Callistus) as a coadjutor for the control of
his Clergy, honoured him to his own damage, and,
having transferred him from Antium, set him over
the Cemetery. And Callistus, being always with
him, and, as I said before, courting him with hypo- 30
crisy, eclipsed him being incapable of forming any
judgment on the arguments used, and not perceiv-
ing the stratagem of Callistus, who accommodated

all his language to his taste.
that after the death of Zephyrinus, Callistus imagin- 35
ing he had gained that to which he aspired, cast P.289

Thus it came to pass,

off Sabellius as heterodox, through fear of me, and
supposing that he might thus be able to wipe off the

Coemeterio in Via Appia videri
potest Aringhi Roma Subterr.
iii. c. xi. § 1. Ruggieri, p. 397.

31. Cod. éeéedanoe, leg. €&n-
dance.

1. De Callisto, Zephyrini Epis-
copi Romani successore, hzec le-
guntur in libro Damasi, p. 608,
Labbé, “Callistus natione Ro-
manus ex patre Domitio de re-
gione urbis Ravennatum sedit
annos v, mens. ii, dies x. Fuit
temporibus Macrini et Helioga-
bali a consulatu Antonini et Alex-
andri. Hic martyrio coronatur.
... Fecit coemeterium Via Appia
ubi multi sacerdotes et martyres
requiescunt, quod appellatur us-
que in hodiernum diem camete-
rium Callisti.”

2. dméaoev non éefwoev, qua
voce utitur Hippol. c. Noét. § 1.
tore Tovroy é€éeyEavres oi mpeo-
Bubrepor eEéwoay tis exkAnoias, quo
quidem ex loco satis patet, ut id
obiter notemus, jus excommuni-
cationis, Hippolyti «tate penes
fuisse Presbyterorum Collegium,
—Episcopo, (dubitari nequit,)
presidente et omnia moderante.
Noétum enim a Papa Victore
damnatum ait auctor libelli Syn-
odici a Pappo editi c. 20. a
Tranquillo Episcopo Chalcedo-
nensi, scribit Auctor Praedestinati,
ec. 36. Theodotum majorem rév
oxurea ab Episcopo Victore apo-
pio @ae narrat Hippolytus. Routh.
ii. 9—23.

s 2

260 Narrative

\ eee
dedouas Ene Kal vouiZwy obrw dbvacOat aro-
, \ \ \ bd , ,
tptWacO0ar thy mpos tas exkAnoias Karnyopiar,
res ~ cy >
ws p adXorpiws doovav. "Hv oby ydns kat
_ \ Be
5 Tavovpyos Kal ETL ypdvm ovvhoTace Toots.
DA \ \ \ >\ J 4 > ~ ,
Eywr 0€ kat rov tov é€yKeipevov ev TH Kapdla,
\ >) A ‘\ ~ eA ~ A > v4
Kal evOews pndev Poover, awa O€ Kat atdobpevos
oO , ~
Ta adrnOn Eye, Ova TO Onpooia Hiv dvedl-
~ b] / \ \ \
Covra eimety O(0eot eoré, ada Kal Ola TO UTO
10 roV LaBedrAlov ovyvws KarnyopeioOar ws mapa-
> qn
Bavros rnv mowrny rior, Ededper aipeow Tot-
lA / af , 3 \ ‘SS e\ Fh |
avoe, AéEywv Tov hoyoy avrov civat viov, avTrov
\ / ew 4 \ "4 «a 5
Kal warépa, ovdpart pev Kadobpevor, Ev O€ dv,
\ ~ > 4 c ’ v7 > /
TO TvEvpa advalperov’ ovK Addo Eivat TaTEpa,
, X a \
15 aAo O€ vidvy, Ev O€ Kal TO adTo UTapyeLy, Kal
\ és a
Ta Tavra yepeww Tod Oelov mvebparos Ta Te aVH
\ lA \ ey ~ / X
Kal KaTW, Kal E€ivat TO Ev TH TapVEvw capKwlev
~ b) ¢ \ \ / >>: Va
TVEVLA OVY ETEDOY Tapa TOY TaTépa, adda Ev
\ a > /
Kat TO abr6. Kal rotro eivat ro eipnwevoy “ OW
P e¢ > \ b] qn \ a. «& A ’
20 TLOTEVEIS OTL EYW EV TH TarTpl, Kal O TaTHp EV
>] 4.93 za: \ \ ul ‘dA , \
enol; To pev yao Preomevov, omep Eoriv

14. Cod. od« ado. 16. Cod. yepetv. 19. Joann. xiv. 11.

9. Vir doctus Robertus Scott
in Censura Arnoldiana, ii. p. 538,
legit pndev edOeos.

13. mapaBavros Codex: mal-
lem rapaBdyra.

16. dvdpate pev Kadovpevoy
Cod. Ante xadovpevoy excidisse
videtur dAXo.

16. dvra: sic Bunsenius recté
pro Codicis lectione dy ré.

25. Vide has Noétianorum ex-
ceptiones recitantem Hippolytum
c. Noétum, § 7, locum huie nostro
plané gemellum.
Ort €y@ ev tT@ Ilarpi x.7.A. Kal
Oédovor Aéyeww (of Nonriavoi) dia

ov mioTevets

concerning the Church of Rome. 261

reproach to which he was exposed in the eyes of
the Churches, as if he were not of unsound belief. 5
In good truth he was a deceiver and impostor, and
in course of time drew many along with him. And
harbouring the venom in his bosom, and having no
rectitude of mind, and at the same time being
ashamed to profess sound doctrine because he had 10
before calumniated me in public and said “ You are
a Ditheist,” and because also he was often charged
by Sabellius with having swerved from his first faith,
he invented such a heresy as follows. He said that
the Word is the Son and is also the Father, being 15
called by different names, but being one indivisible
Spirit; and that the Father is not one and the Son
another (person), but that they both are one and
the same, and that all things are full of a Divine
Spirit, both things above and things beneath, and 20
that the Spirit which was Incarnate in the Virgin
was not different from the Father, but one and the
same, and that this was the meaning of our Lord’s
words, “ Believest thou not that I am in the Father,
and the Father in me?” (John xiv. 10.) For that 25

rovro Kpatruver Oa Td Sdéypa adrar.
Vide etiam que his regerit ipse
Hippolytus c. Noét. c. xiv. ed.
Fabr. ii. 15, ubi tov Aéyov Deum
preedicat, duos autem Deos se ag-
noscere diserté negat. ravrny riv
oikovoplay trupadidwow jyiv Kal 6
paxaptos “lwdvyns ev Evayyedio
papruper, kai rodrov tov AO'TON
@EO'N dépodoyet ovrws Aéyor" "Ev

apxij fv 6 Adyos cai 6 Adyos fv
mpos Tov Gedy, kal Ocds fy 6 Ad-=
yos- Ei 8€ ody 6 Adyos mpds rév
Ocdv Geds dv, ri ody hyoecev dy
tis S0o Aéeyew Oeovs; Sto pev
ovK €p@ Ocods, GAN 7} €va, tpoa-
oma dé dvo, oixovopiay d€ rpitny,
THY xapw tov ‘Ayiouv Ivevparos.
larnp pev yap els, mpdawma dé dvo
ére kat 6 vids, ro 8€ rpirov rd

262

Narrative

” ~ > \ e\ \ me a ea
avOpwros, TovTo eivat TOY vidv, TO OE EV TO VID

> ~ >
ywoonlev IIvevpa TOUTO ELVAL TOV Tarépa’ ov

\ A >] ~
yap, pyotv, ep@ dbo Deovs, rarépa kal vidv, GAN

v € \ ? Dy 7a ’ \
2eva. O yao ev avT@ yevopmevos TraTnp, Tpoc-

VA \ , b] , fish € _
AaBopevos THY OAapKAa eJeorroinoev EVWOAS EAUTY,

\ > 4, “a € ~ / \ e\
Kal eroinoev ev, ws KadeioOat raTépa Kat vioV,

a \ \ ~ a X\ ¥. \ /
eva Qeov, kal ToUTO Ev Ov Tpdcwroy pn Obvac8at

s / \ v4 \ / /
ELVaL OU0, Kal OUTWS TOV TATEDA oupretovOevat

Cn fot vA
80 TM vig" ov yao OéXer A€é- yew TOV Ture pa TETOV-

/ Ae > / ’ a \ b]
Dévar Kal €V ELVAL TPOOWTOV exduyety THY Els

P.290 rov marépa BAaodnpiay o avdnros Kal rouKidos,

U
0avw Katw cyedialwyv Brachnplas, iva povor

\ lan bd] , / ~ \ ‘\ b]
Kata THs adnOeias Eye OoKy, Tore pev Ets
TO LaBedrrlov ddypa éurinrwv, wore de eis 7d

5 Ocoddrov ovK aloetrat.

Tovavra 0 yéns ToApq-

29. Cod. cuvrerovbévat.

"Ay.ov Tvedpa. Undesatis refellitur
Bunsenii suspicio, ne dicam cavil-
latio, ex his Noétianorum argu-
tiis colligentis vel Meiero colli-
genti adstipulantis, duorum Deo-
rum dogma respuentium, de ¢ertia
sacrosancte ‘Trinitatis Persona
nihil adhuc innotuisse, ideoque
Hippolyti ztate de Sancti Spiri-
ttis Deitate nihil fuisse definitum.
Reclamat hie ipse Hippolytus,
reclamat, inquam, in sermone c.
Noétum, § 8. dvdyxn spodoyeiv
Tlarépa Gedy Tlavroxparopa kai
Xpiordv “Incody vidy Geod, Gedy
avOporov @ mTmavra
Ilarnp iméra€e mapexros €avrov

yevopevov,

kat IIvevparos ‘Ayiov, kai tovrous
ovras eivat Tpia, et alio in loco
c. Noét. 14. 6 yap xeXevor Ilaryp,
6 6€ tmaxovov Yids, rd dé cuvert=
Coy “Aytov TIvedpa. ‘O dy Larnp
ert mavtav, 6 b€ Yids dia wavrov,
7d O€ "Aytoy Ivetpa ev raow. “Ad-
os eva Gedy vopioar od Suvapeba
€av py dvtws Tlarpi Kal Yi@ kal
‘Ayi@ Ilvetpatimicrevoc@pev. Ad-
de locum ec. Noét. § 9. et doxo-
logiam in fine, p. 20, ed. Fabr.
Ceterum cum his conferas que
scripsit Tertullian. c. Prax. 13.
“Duos tamen Deos et duos Do-
minos nunquam ex ore nostro
proferimus,” ubi illorum insa-

concerning the Church of Rome.

263

which was seen, that is man, was the Son; but the
Spirit which was contained in the Son, was the

Father.

For, said Callistus, “ I will never acknow-

ledge two Gods, the Father and the Son, but One
God. For the Father born in Him, having taken 30
human flesh, divinized it by uniting it to Himself,
and made it one, so that One God is called Father
and Son; and this being One Person cannot be two.”
And so he said that the Father had suffered with
the Son; for he does not like to say that the Father 35
suffered and was One Person, because he shrinks
from blasphemy against the Father, he (forsooth)

who is so infatuated and versatile, and extempo- P.290

rizes blasphemy hither and thither, in order only
that he may appear to speak against the truth,
and is not ashamed of falling at one time into the
dogma of Sabellius, and at another into that of

Theodotus.

This deceiver having ventured to do such things,

nize quos “ vanissimos Monarchi-
anos (c. 13)” appellat, respondet.
Idem argumentum tangit Novati-
anus, de Trin. c. 28. Vide et ec.
29, qui quidem loci his Hippolyti
nostri sententiis lucem affundunt.

35. Hee sunt referentis ipsa
Callisti verba vocesque in vulgus
sparsas, ad se suamque ipsius hee-
resim tuendam.

36. exdvyeiv. Sic Cod. “ Ante
exuyety queedam omissa esse ap-
paret” ait Miller. ... Legendum
fortasse EK TOY EK®YTIEIN.

De re ipsa vide Tertullian. c.
Prax. 29. “ Directam blasphe-
miam in Patrem veriti diminui
eam hoc modo sperant si Filius
quidem patitur, Pater vero com-
patitur... Times Patrem dicere
passibilem quem dicis (Filio)
compassibilem.”

5. De Theodoto Byzantio, qui
Wrds6v avOperov xptordy dixit,
supra 257, infra 328. 1—18. Con-
fer item que de Theodoto serip-
sit noster, c. Noét. § 3, et que
scripturus est infra, lib. x. p. 330.

264 Narrative
lon ~ >
gas, cvveotnoaro OlWackaXeloy Kara Tis’ ExcAn-
, ev "é \ ~ \ \ \
alias ovTws dwWakas, Kal mpWTOS Ta moos Tas
c \ A > ’ ~ b] , tA
noovas Tots avOpwrois svyywpeiy Eevonoe, E-
- i b] ~ 71S € , c
yov racw vr avrov adiecOar apaprias. O
\ as ES \
lo yap wap ETépw Tiwi cvvaydpevos Kal eydpevos
\ U A
Xpioriavos el TL av apapry, pacity, od AoyiZerat
avTp 4 apapria, el mpocdpapot Ty TOV KadXi-
>. © ~ \
aTov cxYoAy ov TO Sow apEeoKkdpevor modXol
U , 7 pF AG eS. ~
cvvelonow memAnydres, Awa TE Kal VTO TOAA@Y
4Oe ’ / ‘\ \ » Wee: RE |
15 alpéoewy amoPAnOevres, TIVES O€ Kal EL KaTa-
/ v an b , ae eRe lon ,
yywoe: exBAnror THs ExkAnolas VP nuoy yevd-
fevol, TMpocywonoayvres avrois, exANOvvay TO
dlWackareiovy adbrov. Odros edoypaticey Orws
el emlokoros adoro. TL, et Kal mods Oavaror,
\ in 5) \
20 pu Oetv karatibecOa. “Ent robrov ijpéavro ert-
\ / \ O , 4 \
okOTOL Kal ToEcBUTEpoL Kal OLlaKovol Ciyapot Kal
Ei dé Kai
16. Cod.

rolyauo. KkabloracQat eis KAnoovs
plryap npovs.

8. Cod. ovyyxapeiv. 11. “ Leg. 6 re dv.” Miller.

EKKANTOL.

58. de Callisto, qui dicitur wore pev
T® Nontrod Sdéypare mepippyyvipe-
vos, more b€ TH Ocoddrov, pndev
doganes Kparéar.

11. Vide locum Tertulliani in-
fra citandum, et que adnotavit
doctissimus et desideratissimus
Antistes, Joannes Kaye, in Ter-
tullian. p. 239. 257.

13, Videtur esse quedam an-
tithesis inter Xpuords et Kadhu-
oros et inter Xprotiavds et KadXu-
ottavés. Christiani, inquit, quant-

opere peccatores, peccatorum suo-
rum reatu scilicet sunt soluti, si
modo fiunt Callistiani!

22. *Eml rovrov, i. e. illo Epis-
copatum obtinente. Vide p. 279.
39. rovray xara diadoxny de Ze-
phyrino ejusque successore Cal-
listo ; et 279. 30. Zedupivov &-
érew vowitovros thy ’ExkAnoiay et
284. 78. Kd\dcoros Onpapevos Tov
Ths émuoxoTns Opdvov, et 288. 96.
pera thy TOU Zehupivov Te-
Leura vouiCeoy rervxnKevat ob €On-

concerning the Church of Rome. 265

set up for himself a school against the Church, teach-
ing these doctrines; and he was the first to devise
also to gratify men in their lusts, saying that all men’s 10
sins were forgiven by himself. For if any one com-
mits any sin who is a member of another man’s con-
gregation and is called a Christian, his sin (they say)
is not imputed to him if he runs off to the School of
Callistus. And many persons being delighted with 15
this decree who were wounded in their consciences,
and who had also been thrown off from many Here-
sies, and some cast out of the Church by me after ju-
dicial sentence, flocking to them, swelled his School.
This man promulgated as a dogma, that if a Bishop 20
should commit any sin, even if it were a sin unto
death, he ought not to be deposed. In his time
Bishops, Priests and Deacons, digamists and tri-

gamists, began to be enrolled in the Clergy.

paro que quidem idecirca duxi
notanda, quia nonnulli videntur
existimasse de alio Callisto hic
agi, quam quem in Episcopatu
Ecclesize Romane Zephyrino suc-
cessisse accepimus. Certé Cal-
listum aliquem Zephyrini fuisse
successorem nescire non poterat
noster, et hee que de Callisto
scribit, nunquam fuisset scripturus,
si hic, de quo scribit Callistus, alius
a Callisto Zephyrini successore
fuisset. Im6d seduld operam de-
disset, ne quis hee legens, Cal-
listum hune Noétianum cum Cal-
listo Episcopo Romano confun-
dere potuisset. Sed de his satis

jam supra dictum est. Vide Dis-
sertationis preevie cap. vii. p. 82.

24. Tertullian. ad Uxor. ec. 7,
“ disciplina Ecclesize et preescriptio
Apostoli digamos non sinit pre-
sidere.” De Exhort. Cast. ¢. 7,
“* Quosdam memini Digamos loco
dejectos, . . . de suis Montanistis
testatur de Pudicit.c.1. * Diga-
mos’ (i. e. etiam laicos) ‘foris
sistimus, eundem limitem liminis
meechis quoque et fornicariis figi-
mus. De iis autem quos ipse
Psychicos pro suo arbitrio vocat,
audi exclamantem de Monogam,
ce. 12. “ Quot enim et digami
president apud vos!” Digamorum

Narrative

266

bd , v 14 / \ ~ I
Tis ev KANPW Ov yapoln, pmévely TOY ToLOvTOY EV
a , < Ve pas oes | / s
T~ KANO ws pw NapTnKdTa’ Ertl TobTH PacKwY

25 elpno0at TO UTO TOU aTooTéXov pnOev, “ Xv Tis

ei 6 Kplvywy addérptov oixérny; ’AAAd Kal ra-
paBorny Trav Cilaviwy mpds robrp Edn AێyeOar"
“"Adgere ra Cilavia ovvabéew r@ oitw, Tovr-

éorw év ry ExkAnola rods apapravovras. “A)-

30 Aa kal thy KiBwrov Tod Noe eis opotwpa ’ExxAn-

P 291

olas Epn yeyovévat, év % kal Kbves Kal bot Kal
Képakes, kal Tavra Ta KaOapa Kal axdOapra’ ovrw
ddokwy detv civar év ExxAnolg opotws’ kal doa
mpos TovTo OuvaTos nv ouvayew ovTws Howhvev-
cev, 08 of axpoaral nabévres Tots Odypact Ovape-
vovow éumatlovres e€avrois te Kal moAXots, Ov
7 OlWackarely cvppéovow dyAo. Ato Kal
TrAnObvovTat yaupi@pevor emt SyAots dia Tas

c \ cal > / € \ e
n0ovas, as ov Guveywonoev 0 Xptoros, ov Kara-

25. Rom. xiv. 4. 28. Matt. xiii. 30.

4. Cod. d:dackarcior.

23. Cod. dv yvapn.
3. Cod. eumefovtes.

quorundam exempla in nonnullis _p. 99, Fell. “ Etsi videntur in

Ecclesiis ad Episcopale fastigium
provectorum videas apud Bing-
ham. iv. v. § 4.

25. Super hac re consulenda
egregia doctissimi Whartoni dia-
tribe, De Cleri Coelibatu, Lond.
1688.

35. Sic, uti norunt omnes, post
Hippolyti etatem, docuerunt Ca-
tholici Patres. S. Cyprian. de
Unit. Eccles. p. 111, et Epist. liv.

Ecclesia esse zizania, non tamen
impediri debet aut fides aut ca-
ritas nostra, ut, quoniam zizania in
Ecclesia cernimus, ipsi de Ee-
clesia recedamus. Nobis tantum-
modo laborandum est, ut frumen-
tum esse possimus.” Fulgent. de
fide, ad Petrum, c. 42, et S. Aug.
Epist. cv. 16. * Ecclesiam Catho-
licam agrum suum Dominus docet
tanquam zizania inter triticum.”

concerning the Church of Rome.

267

And if any one being in the clerical body should 25
marry (he determined) that such a person should re-
main in the Clergy as not having sinned, saying that
the words of the Apostle were spoken with a view
to him: “ Who art thou that judgest another man’s

servant ?” (Rom. xiv. 4); and he said that the parable 30

of the tares was spoken with reference to him:
“ Let the tares grow together with the wheat” (Matt.
xiii. 30.), that is, let sinners remain in the Church.
Besides, he said that the Ark of Noah was made for
a figure of the Church, and that in it were dogs and 35
wolves and ravens, and all clean things and unclean ;
affirming that it must be so in the Church.

As many passages for this purpose as he was able P.291

to collect he expounded in this manner; and his dis-
ciples being pleased with his doctrines remain, de-
luding themselves and others, and crowds flock to

their School.

Hence they are thronged, vaunting their mul-5
titudes, on account of pleasures which Christ did not

S. Aug. c. Faust. lib. xii. 15.
“ Cuncta animalium genera in
Area clauduntur. Sicut in Ec-
clesiee sacramentis et boni et mali
versantur.” Sed venia detur Hip-
polyto alia rigidius statuenti. Illi
enim non contigit videre que
postea deliraverunt Novatiani et
‘pars Donati.’ Sed “ oportebat
hereses esse, ut probati essent mani-
Jesti.” Oportebat schismata ori-
ri, ut disciplinze Christiane leges
melius dispungerentur, et ut ve-

ritas “de permixta Ecclesia” a
Catharis in dubium vindicata, piis
Sanctorum Episcoporum, Cypri-
ani, Optati, Augustini laboribus
feliciter vindicaretur, et in perpe-
tuum solidaretur et stabiliretur.
Interea fas sit monuisse, hee et
plurima similia, que lector paulld
attentior ipse per se animadvertet,
luculenta afferre testimonia qui-
bus hujusce libri ad@evria et yrn-
owdrns corroborentur. Ceterum
de his jam fuse egimus, p. 102.

268 Narrative

"ad >] ‘\ € ~ / 7
poovnoavres oddev apapreiy Kwrbovor, dacKor-
aD in. ~ és \ \ \
Tes abt@ adiévat Tots evdoKovar Kal yap Kal
\ bd / 95207 > A pt 4
yuvaitiv exerpever et avavopo. eiev Kat nrtKiGg
, b] 4 Price ~ Yes a \ /
10 7€ TE Kalovra Evatia n EavTov afiay jv pH Bov-
\ ~ ~
AowrTo kaBaipew. Ata rovro vopipws yapnOjvat
! , ;
Ever Eva Ov ay aipnowyrat obYKOLTOY, ELTE OLKETHY,
” b] / y.' las / BJ a ie y \
etre eXebOepoy, Kal TovToy Kpiveww avTl avdpos
\ , f v7 bi b]
pn vopw yeyapunwerny. EvOev npgavro emtyei-
et \ b ~ \
15 pety moral Neyopevar arokia mepwWeopetoOat Kat
\
dappaxois, moos TO Ta ovdAdAapBavopeva Kata-
>
BadrAew, did TO phre Ex dobdov BovrecOar Eyew
/ , >] > ~ O \ \ /
TEKVOV, pte E& eEvTEedovs Ola THY oVvyyEevELaY
‘ tg / 9... 9 4 las > Y b /
Kal UTepoyKoy ovoiay. Opare els oonv ace-
Bik Weed , \ / b
20 Betayv EywonoEV O Avopos potyelay Kal Povoy ev
qn 9 _ Ouod \ ae" , ond X 4
TP aUT@ OWaoKwY, Kal ETL TOvTOLS Tots TOApMN-
€ \ € > / ae
pacw e€avrovs ot amnovOpiacpéevor Kafodukny

9, 10. “ Ita hec scripta sunt in codice. Nisi gravior corruptio inest,
post éérpeyrey supple auapreiy (scilicet assumendo ovyxorroy), et scrib.
nArukia Kaiowro ai ev a€ia, tiv éavrav akiay hy (sive potius ed) yy Bov-
Aowro Kabaipety.” Miller. 14. Cod. #p£Earo. 12, Cod. roApn-
22. Cod. drepvOp.

oaolty.

8. Cod. airé. Legendum vide-
tur avrol, vide supra p. 290. 32.

10. Sic Cod. Legit Bunsenius,
i. p. 134. kal yap Kat yvvacs
ev a&ia émérpewev ei dvavdpor
elev Kal mAtKia ‘ye éxkalowTo, TN-
pety €avrav aéiav iv pn BotdowrTo
kaOaipew. Audaciusculé. Sed in
loco salebroso dandum aliquid
licentiz. Age, nos quoque symbo-
lam afferamus. Locum integrum

sic representandum conjecerim,
kal yap kal yuvaély érérpewer, et
avavdpou eiev, kal nALKL@T] Kal-
owto davakio, 7) éavtdv agiav pi
BovAowro kabaipew, dia TovTo vo-
pipes yaunOnva éxeiv@ oy ap
aipnoavra cvyKo.rov. De yapnOi-
vat, nubere, vide Lobeck. Phryn. p.
742, Iren. v. 9. 7 viphn yapnoat
ov divarat, yapnOjnva dé Svvarat.
16. vdépo yeyapnpérny. Con-

concerning the Church of Rome. 269

permit, and in despite of Him they restrain from no
sin, professing that they themselves forgive sins to
those who acquiesce in them.

For he also permitted women, if they had no 10
husband, and were enamoured of a comrade unworthy
of themselves, or did not wish to degrade their own
dignity, therefore they might lawfully marry any
one whom they chose as a consort, whether a slave
or free, and that she who was not married to him 15
lawfully might regard him in place of a husband.

Thence it was that women, called believers, began
to venture to bandage themselves with ligaments to
produce abortion, and to deal with drugs in order to
destroy what was conceived, because they did not 20
like to have a child from a slave or a mean person,
on account of their kindred, and haughtiness of
wealth.

Behold to what impiety this lawless person pro-
ceeded, teaching adultery and murder at the same 25
time! And yet after all these enormities these men
are lost to all sense of shame, and presume to call

feras quee in Traditione Aposto- mane, ut videtur, Ecclesia (no-

lica 8:4 “Inodtrov statuuntur, p.
254. miords eay €xn maddAakiy, €ay
pev SovAny, ravodcbe, kal vdpo@
yapeira, el dé eXevdepay, yape i-
T@ avTiy vopQ.

19. Pro droxia legendum yide-
tur ardxca, et ante pappdkors sup-
plendum émcyecpeiv.

25. De Episcopo quodam, Ro-

men non liquet) similia narrat
Tertullianus, jam Montanista, de
Pudicitia ec. 1. “ Audio Edictum
esse propositum et quidem per-
emptorium; Pontifex scilicet Max-
imus, Episcopus Episcoporum, di-
cit, Ego et meechie et fornica-
tionis delicta pcenitentia functis
dimitto.”

270 Narrative

> > ~ ~
exkAnolav arokanely erryeipovet, Kal res vopt-
> ~ ?
Covres ev mparrew ovvtpéxovow advrois. ‘Ent
25 robrov mowtws TeTroApntrar Oebrepoy adrois Ba-
~ \ > € 4
mriopa. Tavra pev ovy o Qavpaciwraros Kak-
Or 4 a
Atoros ovvEoTHoATo, ov Otapéevet TO OWacKadetov
, tf \ \ , \
@uAacoov ra &0n Kat rHY Tmapdadoow, pH dta-
kpivov tlov det Kowwvely, maow axplrws mpoc-
/ \ , te ae es oe ae a De: RR
30 dépwy THY Kowwwviay’ ad ov Kal THY TOU dvdmaTos
P.292 peréoyov emlkAnow KadreioOa dvd Tov mpwro-
, ~ / ” ,
oTaTnoavTa Twyv TolovTwy epywyv KadXoror,
KadXtortavol.
Tobrov kara wavra Tov Koopov dunynOetons
5 THs OwacKkaNlas, Eevidwy THY TpaypaTetay avijp
, b
Oédvos Kat arovolas yépuwv, “AdkiBiadns tis
f 9 hee 3 a , ~ ,
cadobpevos, oixov ev Arapeta rhs Xvpias, yoo-
, € \ \ b) / bd ,
yorepov e€avroy Kal evdvéotepoy ev KkuPelats
~ ~ at /
kpivas Tov KadXlorov, éxndOe ry Pony pépwy
10 BiBAov Twa, Packwy rabrny aro Snpoy rhs Ilap-
Olas raperrnoevar twa avdpa dikaov ’Hdya-
dh 6A 4 : \ / x.
cal, hv TapédwKe Tt AEyonéerw DoBiat yonpari-
@Q ~ EP 4 ge Wee , 3 a
aleioay v0 ayyéXov, ov TO Vos cyoWwiwy KO O
, , S- X a , . on ,
yiverau pitta 25° ro 0€ wAATOS avTov cyoWwiwYr
} Mr 3 Ow eee 2 , aster 1.”
15 0, Kal ATO Wpov Els Woy GyoWwlwy s* Ta OE LyvH

25. Literze dAy in codice exesee. ib. Cod. Bdmrnopa. 6. Cod.
aAxnBiddns. 10. Cod. droonpar.

9. Vide Theodoret. Heret. 5. Ceterim hane Helcesaita-
Fab. ii. 7. Epiphan. Her. xix.c. rum heresim, non adeo immuta-

concerning the Church of Rome. 271

themselves a Catholic Church! And some persons
imagining to fare well resort to them.

In his time, first they dared to administer a second 8°
baptism.

These things this most admirable Callistus con-
trived, and his school still survives preserving its prac-
tices and its tradition, not making any distinction as
with whom it is fit to communicate, but offering 35
communion indiscriminately to all, from whom his
scholars derived their appellation, so as to be called, P.292
on account of him who took the lead in these matters,
—namely, Callistus,—Callistians.

When his teaching had been noised through the
whole world, a person full of subtlety and madness, 5
called Alcibiades, dwelling in Apamea in Syria,
deeming himself a more august person, and more
adroit in jugglery, than Callistus, came to Rome,
bringing a Book, which he said that a certain just
man, called Elchasai, had received from the Seres 10
of Parthia, which he gave to a certain Sobiai, being
delivered by an Angel.

tam, nostra etate recoctam vidi- | Libro quodam_portentoso, divi-
mus ab iis qui se Mormonitas ap- _nitus dato, hausisse se profiten-
pellant, et suam disciplinam a tur.

272 Narrative

~ lan 2 BY ca ue ; e
TOY TOOMY aVTOU ETL pHKos oyolvwy y nulcovs
\ /

a yliverat pitta Oexaréooapa’ ro dé mAaTOS
4 EN Cli \ A ee € /
cyolvov Evos Iicovs, TO 0€ Vos IpuLcyoivov.
> \ \ » ~ \ , iC \ /
Eivai 0€ ovy avt@ cat Onrevav, is Ta pérpa

\ \ / > /
20KaTa TA Tpoeipnuéva eivat Eye Kal TOY pev
x” e\ S ~ ~ \ \ 4
apoeva viov eivar Tov Oeov, rhv de OndeEvay
KadetoOar ayvov Ivetpa. Tatra reparodoyor,
\ \ / fq
vopile. Tapdooew Tovs pLwpovs, A€ywy TovToY

b) / von ) / x ”
evnyyedicbar Trois avOpwros Kawyny adeow
¢ a > ey ee ca / , \

25 apaptioyv, ext Tpavtavov Baoreias rpitw, Kat

td .. ff a \ «SS , ,

Barriopa opilet, 0 Kal avTo Omyhoopat, PacKkwy

\ b >] \ 4
Tovs ev Taoy acedyeia Kal puacp@ Kal avoph-
> / \ \ U > /
pac €upupevras, €l Kal TLOTOS EL, ETLOTPEWaVTA
- \

kat ths B(BAov Karaxoboavra Kal mioteboarrTa,
U ~

30 opiler Barriopart AapBdvew adeocw apapriov.

Tavra 0€ eroApnoe Teyvacal Ta Tavovpyhpata
> \ “ / / b] \ \

amo TOU TpoEipnpevov ddyparos apoppyny AaBwr,

6% / \
ov mapeornoato KadXuoros. “Hoopévovs yap

, \ Bae / > 4 >
P.293 Karavonoas ToAXNoVS ET ToLa’TY ETayyEALa Ev-
4 3 4, - >] ~~ \ 4 in WES, « ~
Kaipws evomioey emiyerpety. Kat robry dé nets

> - b) » Ms b \ ~
AVTLOTAYTES, OVK Eldoapey EriToAY TAaYNOHVAL,
ToAXNOvs ede yEavres eivat TOUTO TYEbpaTOS vo0ov

> tA \ a , / §
5evepyelay Kal erivotay rePvowwperns Kapdtas,

23. Cod. Aéyav, Aéyov. A€ywv Adyov R. Scott. 26. Cod. avr@.
27. Cod. doeyeia. 28. “ Vocis miorés literze oro exesee. Addendum
videtur ris.” Miller. ib. Cod. éemirpéyyarra. 30. Cod. apeow
adeow dpaptiav. 2. Cod. evéunrer. 4, Sic codex ; sed post
modXovs distinguendum videtur. ib. Cod. edrAéyéarres.

Callistus. 273

These artifices he ventured to contrive, having
taken occasion from the dogma aforesaid, which Cal-
listus adopted. For having perceived that many P.293
were pleased with such promises (of indulgence), he
imagined that he made the attempt at a favourable
opportunity. And I resisting him did not suffer the
heresy to spread wide, convincing many that thiss
was the working of a spurious spirit, and the imagi-

5. émurodkd mravnbjva. Sic MAATYNOHNAI, ie. laté diffundi.
MS. ProMNAANH@OHNAI mallem

T

274 Plan of

\ a / / ) /
Kal Tovrov NvKoV Oikny Ereynyepmevoy TaVO-
/ ~ ~
pévois mooBdrois modXois [a] arorAavav Ot-
eoxvpricev 0 KadXuoros.
~ ‘\ re € ~ \ 4 c ,
P.309 Aoxel pev nuivy ikaves ra ravTwy EXAjvev
3 ~ a \
re kal BapBapwy ddypara exreDeioOa, pndev dé
b] / , ~ Vd iP
amoNedourevar pre TOV Pirocohoupéevwy pire
rs € A € ~ , > /
Tov oO aipericoy d | acko| pévwy avamddetkTov.
< b 3 ~ ~ > / \ f.

5 Ois €€ avray Trav ExrefevTwy Pavepos yeyevynrat
, See A X\ U4 KX \ 29 lA
o €Xeyyos 7} KAebiAoynoayTwy 7 Tia Epavioape-

» Ue, . ee ee , /
voy avta Ta UTO EXAjvwyv rerovnmeva Tapabe-
/ € an \ 2. a: U
pevwyv ws Oeta. Ata ravrwy ovy diadpaporres
~ > ~ ’
Kal pera tro\Nov Tovov ev rais evvéa BiBAots
XN , , > A mW, ) /

10 Ta Tavra Obypara eer ovTes, Tact Te aVOpwWToLs
> ~~
edddiov ev Bi puxpov karaXurdyres, Kal Tots

qn ~ \
Tapovow ovK OALyois yapads Kat Ovpndtas pido-
lA lA PL +4 I if
pabevay mapacyortes, evoyov nyobpela worep
\ ~~ \ \ \ b 4 tA
Kopudny tov mavros | rov| wept adnOelas Adyor
> / \ ~ bd = / ~ 4
15 ETEVEYKaL, Kal TOUTOY Ev pid BiPAwW TH dEKary
: :
meprypawat, Orws 0 evtrvyyavwy pn pdvoy ava-
TpoTy Tay TETOALNKOTwWY aipécets TvoTHaacOaL
3 \ , ang lA ) \ \
ETLYVOUS KaTappovnaoy TaY paraiwy, adda Kat
7. Addidi a. 2. Cod. éexreOno ba. 3. Cod. dmodehumevat.
Miller drokedkerrevar. 4. “ Literze supplete lacunam exacte implent ;

supersunt vestigia literarum a et x.” Miller. 9. Cod. rots. Vel
BiBrXios, 12. Cod. dvpidias. 14, “ Addidi rév.” Miller.

13. epddiov ev Bip pexpoy kara- puxpdy. Vide supra, Philosoph.
Aurévres. Legendum videtur od ip. 8, 57. oddé yap pexpdav twa

the Philosophumena. 275

nation of a proud heart, and that he had risen up
like a wolf to ravage the numerous sheep whom
Callistus had led astray and scattered.

The dogmas of the Greeks and Barbarians ap- P.309
pear to have been now sufficiently expounded, and
we seem to have left nothing undeclared, either
of Philosophical systems, or of the assertions of
Heretics, the Refutation of whom has been made 5
clear from what has been propounded; since they
have either plagiarized their systems, or have ga-
thered them (like banquets made by contributions)
from different quarters, and have served up what
have been prepared by Heathens, as if they were 10
divine. Having run through all these, and having
with much labour displayed in Nine Books all their
theories, and having bequeathed no small viaticum
of life to men, and having afforded to our contem-
poraries a desire of learning of no slight pleasure 15
and intellectual gratification, we deem it reasonable
to add, as the sum of the whole, a discourse con-
cerning the Truth, and to include this in one book
the Tenth, so that the reader, not only recognizing
a Refutation of those who have presumed to fabri- 20

Bonbecav ro tov avOporav Bim mdoas ras aipécers Bimede-
kataXeivoper. Anne huc re- orarov?

spexerit Nicephorus Callisti, iv. 15. édtyous. Anlegendum éri-
31, de Hippolyto scribens, quem —-yns?

reliquisse memorat ovvraypa mpds

7 2

276 Address

tiv Ths adnOetas ddvapw exvyvods, aélws Oc@
20 miorevoas owOjvar OvynOy.

Lib. X. :
P.333 = Tobrov roivvuy rov Ndyou kparnoartes praOnral

"EdXAnves, Atybrrio, Xaddator wat may yévos
> / , \ as \ € 4 v
avOporwyv tl To Oeloy Kat 7 robrev evraKTos
> ~~ 4 ~ ~ \
Onpiovpyla map pov tov diiwy tov Oeod, Kat
5 ju) Kooy TOTO HaKNnKOTwWY, AA 1 adnOetas
/ \ > , , b] bd ,
yvwoet Kat acknoe. swdpocdbyns eis arddeew
~ 7
avrov NOyous ToLoUpEVoDV.
P.334 = Qeds eis 0 mp@ros Kal povos Kal andyrov
\ \
TouTns Kal Kbptos, obyypovoy Eayey odbdev, ob
/ > 4 qn
yaos ATEipoy, ody VOwp aperpnroy i) yhv oreppay,
\ re an _~
ovyl adépa TuKVOY, ov mvp OEepjov, ov mvEedpa

i Xr \ ’ ’ a ph / ee
ETTOV, OUVK OUVPaVOV peya OU KUVQAVEAV popony

4. “ Post jay vel alio loco hujus periodi excidisse videtur @AaBov.

5. Fort. koumoddyas.” Miller.
’Opryerns kal ’Apryévovs ddéa.

1. Titulus rubricatus in codice:

1. rovrov rod Adyou Kpatrncay-
tes paOnrai”EAnves. —Legen-
dum pa dere, ut recté Harius apud
Bunsenium. Confer Hippolyti lo-
cum simillimum in Libro zepi rod
qavros, Fabr. i. p. 221. 4 NeAvpeva
épavtes, dmioteire, EAAnves, wa-
Oere pn amore.

5. 9) Tovrou evraxros Snuioup-
yia. Vide infra, p. 338. Sic Hip-
polytus, in ejusdem libri fragmento
Barocciano, quod ad calcem hu-

jusce voluminis inveniet lector,
et quod cum hoc Epilogo libenter
comparabit, d:4 ts Tov ed TaKTOV
vopobecias.

1. In hae Hippolytea veri
enarratione perlustranda memine-
rit lector eam non pro concione
ad clerum, imo neque ad popu-
lum Christianum fuisse enuntia-
tam, sed Sancti Preesulis et Mar-
tyris orationem nune ad Eihnicos
converti ; eam igitur e¢fwrepsKois

to the Heathen. 277

cate Heresies may contemn their vanities, but re-
cognizing also the power of truth, may be saved by
worthy faith in God.

Making yourselves masters of this argument, learn P.333
O ye Greeks, Egyptians, Chaldzeans, and all the race of
men, what the Deity is and what is His well-ordered
creation, from us the friends of God, not discussing 5
this matter in sounding speeches, but uttering our
words in the knowledge of truth, and in the exercise
of sobriety, for the demonstration of Him.

God, One, the First and only One, and Maker P.334
and Lord of all, had nothing coeval with Himself,
not infinite Chaos, nor immeasurable Water, nor
solid Earth, nor thick Air, nor hot Fire, nor subtle
Breath, nor the azure vault of the vast Sky. But 5

potius quam écwrepixois Adyots
venerandi Doctoris esse annume-
randam. Quare si qua hic deside-
raveris ad Christiane religionis
mysteria, et ad fidei capita di-
sertius. declaranda, ea a reliquis
S. Hippolyti scriptis jam super-
stitibus colligas, quae quamvis la-
ciniosa, et tanquam divitum stra-
gulorum fimbriz, tamen ad omnes
istiusmodi defectus supplendos
abundé sunt suffectura.

2. Gemellus locus, quem vide
apud Hippol. c. Noétum, § 10,
beds pdvos drdpyev Kai pndev €xov
€auT@ avyxpovor, €BovAnOn Kédapov
Ktioat.

5. odpavod xvavéay MOP®HN.
Ita MS. Mallem OPO®HN, da-
quear, “the azure vault,” usu
loquendi Hippolyteo, qui poeticas
notiones et pveticas locutiones
sectari solet, ut Irenzi discipulum
facile agnoscas. Sic ccelum dixit
ovpavoyv Sicxoy Hippolytus in
Theophan. p. 261, et Theophilus
Antiochenus (cujusad Autolycum
libros legisse videtur Hippolytus),
Thy Toingw Tov o’pavod Tpdmrov
éréxovra OPOPHS. Sed hanc con-
jecturam jam occupavit vir erudi-
tissimus R. Scott in Censura Ar-
noldiana, p. 541, cujus lucubra-
tiones post hac exarata vidi.

278 Address

aX Hy eis povos EavT@, Os Oedqoas Eroinoe Ta
v b] v /, 4 dd b] /
OVTA OVK OYTa TPOTEpOY, TAHY OTE NOEAHGE ToLEty
€ v7 N lo > / 4 \
ws Eumelpos wy Tov ecomevwy. Llapeort yap
~ \ ~
avTp Kal Tpdyvwots, Olapdpovs TE Tots Ecopevots
> \ ’ vo x qa
10 apyas mpdrepoy ednuobpyet, TUp Kal mvedpa,
HO \ ond > 4% f \ c ~ ,
VOwp Kal yy, e€ wy Ovapdpwy Thy Eavrov Kriow
> , \ \ N / \ be hoes - / \
ETOLEL, KAL TA LEV, fLovVOOUGLA, TA O€, EK OUO, Ta
X\ 5 qa \ b) Vs
O€, EK TPLOY, Ta O€, EK TETOaPwWY oVYECEopEL,
x ten cer 9 ae, n7 a . , A >
Kai ra pev €€ evos, alavara nv* bas yap ov
~ \ a
15 TapaxoNovOe?, Tod yap ev ov AvOjoera ToToTeE,
\ AE? / x 4 x\ 4 A \ \
Ta 0€ Ex Ob0, 7 TPLWY, | TECoapwY, UTA, OO Kal
\ ~ /
Ovnra ovonalerat. Odvaros yap rovro KéxAnrat,
€ an / / c n tz ca ~
n Tov Oedenevay bows. Ikavoy ovy voy Tots
> ~ > ’
ev dpovove arorecplaOat, ot ei Piiopabyoovet
\ \ f > \ \ > 7 ~ \
20Kal Tas TOUTWY ovolas Kal Tas airias THS KaTa
> f b]
Tavra Onpuovpylas ETLCNTHOOVOLY, ELOOVTAaL EVTU-
, € ~ , , \ n~ qa
yovres nov BiBrAw mepteyoboy TeEpL THs TOU
\ eee Fee a re \ 5 > ns
TavrTos ovcias’ TO 0€ vuy ikavoy eivat exOecOat
\ > eae 4 a > / v4 lad ~
Tas airias, ds ov yvovres EXAnves cope ro
, \ / ax , 297 \ /
25 Koy Ta pmEeon THs KTicEews EddEacaY TOY KTicavTa

¥e > \
ayvoncarvtes’ ov adboppas cyovTes oi aipeotapyat

14. Cod. ubique Avors. 24. Cod. yvarres.
9. Act. xv. 18. qualemcunque interpretatione et
10. Millerus post évopéveyplené _notis explicare, quam in textum
interpungit : quod incuria factum intrudere.
videtur. Sed rationum, quas mihi 21. ixavov otv viv trois eb ppo-

prescripsi, memor, nihil mutavi, vodow dmoxexpicOa. Ita MS. Vix
satius ducens sententiam meam _ recté. Vel post dmoxexpio@a: ad-

to the Heathen. 279

He was alone with Himself. He by His Will
created the things that exist, which did not exist
before, but when He willed to create them, as having
foreknowledge of what would be. For Prescience is
present with Him. He also first created divers Ele- 10
ments for the things that were to be, namely, Fire
and Air, Water and Earth, from which divers prin-
ciples He formed His own Creation ; and some things
He made of one element, some He compounded
of two, some of three, some of four. And those 15
things which are of one element are immortal: for
they are not soluble, because what is one will never
be dissolved. But those which are of two elements,
or three or four, are soluble, and are therefore
called mortal. For this is Death, namely, the solu- 99
tion of what is bound. Let then this answer now
be given, which will suffice for the intelligent, who,
if they are desirous of further information, and would
investigate the essence of these things and the causes
of the Universal Creation, may learn them by re- 25
ferring to my Work, containing an essay “ On the
Essence of the Universe.” For the present it seems
enough to expound the causes, which the Gentiles
not knowing, with all their artificial disquisitions,
glorified the parts of Creation, being ignorant of the so
Creator. From whom the Heresiarchs derived occa-

jiciendum Soxet: vel pro dmoxexpi- _ tea, I. p. 220, et droopariov quod
o$a legendum videtur droxexpi- Fabricio nondum compertum ad
co. finem hujus libri adjicietur.

27. De quo vide que dedimus 28. Supplendum Soxet vel vo-

supra, p. 154, et Fabricii Hippoly- —piga.

280

Address

€ , , ae ee /
OMOLOLS Aoyols TA UT EKELYWYV TPOELONMEVa peTa-

V4 ca ,
OVXNMATLOAVTES, ALPE OELS KaTayeNaorous OVVEOTH-

OavTo.

e > \ ‘\
Ovros ovy povos kal kata tavrwy eds, Adyov

Es ? \ b) a b) , t ,
TPWTOV evvonets ATOYEVYE OV oyor ws Puvny,

Ar’ evdtdberoyv Tov mayvros Aoyiopov.

Tovrov

, Ie ae pied. Seidl, teas pi S| \
P.335 ppovov E& OVTWYV Eeyevva TO yap OV, AVTOS O TaTHO

> bd e > / ~

qv, €& ob TO yevynOnvat altioy Tots ywopevots.
> > vas 7 a

Adyos iv ev adt@ épwr ro Oédew Tod yeyev-

5) ” vo a \ ’
VNKOTOS, OUVK ATELDOS TNS TOV TaTOS evvoias*

\ mY. ne ie

apa yap TP EK TOU yeryvhoavros mpoeNOety rpw-
\ a

rérokos Tobrou yevdpevos, Pwviy Eye Ev EavT@
‘\ > qn -~ 3 , ’ / ‘dA 4
Tas év TH TaTpiKM Evvonfeiaas Leas, OOev Keheb-

27. Cod. ra tréxewva.
6. Cod. éyew ev.

3. Cod. yeyevnkéros.

5. Cod. ré &k.

32, Eadem locutione utitur nos-
ter supra, p. 94. 27, unde forsan
hic legendum a?’ &»v. Deinde
pro dpoios mallem dvopoiots.

37. Theophil. Antioch. p. 129.
mpo Tov Tt yiyverOa Tlatnp Adyov
eixe ovpBovdov éavtov Noidy dvra,
émére be HO€Ance 6 Geds roinoa
doa €BovAevaato TovToy Tov Adyov
eyévynoe tpohopixdy mpatdroKov
mdons kticews. Novatian. de Trin.
31. “ Est Deus Pater omnium
Institutor et Creator, solus ori-
ginem nesciens, unus Deus. Ex
quo quando Ipse voluit, Sermo
Filius natus est, qui mon in
sono percussi aéris aut tono co-
acte de visceribus vocis acci-
pitur, sed in substantia prolate

a Deo virtutis agnoscitur. Hic
cum sit genitus a Patre semper
est in Patre.”

1. Todroy povoy &€& bvrav éyev-
va. Que quidem verba vertit
Bunsenius, *‘ Him alone of all
things He begat,” adedque evi-
dentissimum nostri de Filii épo-
ovoi@ testimonium obscuravit.
Quod autem dicit Hippolytus hoe
est: Pater ex nihilo cetera fecit,
VERBUM autem ex substantia jam
existente generavit,—hoc est ex
Serpso; velut in alio loco ec.
Noét. § 11. wavra da Adyov, ad=
Tos dé pdvos ex Tarpos, unde cla-
rum lucramur testimonium contra
Arianos creaturam ex nihilo fac-
tam Dei Filium somniantes. Mi-

to the Heathen.

281

sions for their Heresies, and having travestied their
systems in similar words, have formed Heresies which

are ridiculous.

This One and Supreme God generates the Word 35
first in His own mind; He generates the Word,
not as a Voice, but as the Indwelling Ratiocination

of the Universe.
exists.

Him alone He generates of what p,335
For the essence of things is the Father

Himself, from whom is the cause of generation to
what is generated. The Word was in the Father:
The Word, bearing the will of Him Who begat the 5
Word, and not unconscious of His Father’s cogita-

tion.

For simultaneously with His procession from

Him Who begat Him, being His First-born, He had
as a voice in Himself the ideas conceived in His

ror doleoque Bunsenium, cujus
ingenii dotes suspicio, non sine
amarulentaé quadam irrisione dix-
isse se minimé dubitare, quin
orituri sint nonnulli, qui Sanctum
Hippolytum de Verbo Dei uni-
genito dp00dd€es sensisse conten-
dant, quorum quidem conatum
temerarium atque adeo frustra-
neum fore non obscuré innuerit.
Sed pace viri egregii, ipse sanc-
tum Antistitem perversé intelli-
gendo, ipse Sanctum Hippolytum
aliquoties perperam interpretando,
peené fecit hereticum. Sed salva
res est. Non eget Hippolytus
defensoribus qui ejus dp@odogiav
propugnent, Absint tantum pra-
vee interpretationes: ipse pro se
loquatur: ipse se tuebitur.

7. Hippol. ec. Noét. § 10.
TOV ywopevey apynyov kal cipBov-
Rov kal épyarny éyevva Adyov, by
Adyov €x@yv é€v éavt@, adpardy Te
évTa, TH KTiCouev@ Kdop@ dpardv
moet, ubi Adyoy appellat rod Ocod
Tov ito vody, aird pdv@ mpdrepov
éparoy imdpyxovra.

9. dwvyv EXEIN ev éavr@ ras
€v TO Tarpik@ evvonbeioas idéas,
dOev Kehevovros Tarps yiver Oat
Kéopoy Td kara év Adyos AITETE-
AEITO APESKON ¢6. Sic Co-
dex, manifesta corruptela. Legit
Bunsenius dav pro devi et
sic interpretatur, “ For when He
(the Word) came forth from Him:
being His First-begotten Speech,
He had in Himself the ideas con-
ceived by the Father.” Sed jam

10

282

Address

\ s , \ Noa ,
OYTOS TaTPOS yiverOa KOO [OV TO KaTa €V Aoyos

bs ~ > / lo
aTeTEXNEITO apeckwov OEew.

\ ‘ \ b)
Kat ra pev ert

yevécet TANObvorTa, apceva Kal Ojrea eloyalero"

¢ XN \ ¢ / \ , \
ood O€ TOs UTNPEGLAV Kat Aeroupyiar, 1) apoEeva

ca \ >
OnX\erov phy mT poadedmeva, N OUTE apoEeva, ouvrTeE

OnXea.

12. “ Medium 7 delendum videtur.”

\ \ Cc , ~ 2 or )
Kat yap at rovtwy rowrar ovoia €&

Miller.

ipse negaverat Hippolytus AO-
TON esse davnv. Liquet, opi-
nor, devijy sanum esse, deinde
pro EXEIN legendum duabus
literulis transpositis eZyev, et pro
ATIETEAEITO *APEZKOQN Gc@
reponendum ‘ANETEAEI TO
"APESKON Geo. Non enim in
his dicebant Patres dmoredciobat
Testis ipse Hip-
polytus in simillimo loco, indicio
catholicee doctrine evidentissimo,
c. Noét.§ 14. Iarip pev ets, rpdc-

sed dmore\eiv.

c

oma S€ dvo, Gru Kai 6 vids’ Td Oe
tpirov To dyov mvedpa. Tarnp
evréAXerar, Adyos “AIOTEAEI.
Hine S. Irenei vetus interpres,
ii. 47, “ hic mundus factus est apo-
telestos a Deo.”

Fortasse hic dixerit quis, Hip-
polytum nostrum VerRsBI genera-
tionem facere, quod aiunt, ypo-
vikny sive temporariam, non autem
sempiternam. Quare adolescentes
monitos velim, quorum precipué
causa hee commentatus sum,
duas Patrum Ante-niceenorum
fuisse quasi familias, de hoc fidei
capite specie diversa loquentes,
re tamen idem sentientes ; quo-

rum alii quidem Generationem
Filii manifesté preedicabant eter-
nam ; alii vero ut Justinus, Athena-
goras, Theophilus, Tatianus, Ter-
tullianus, inter quos etiam emine-
bat noster Hippolytus, quum Dei-
tatem rod Adyov declarassent,
eumque ab eterno extitisse in
Mente Patris, évdvaberov Tarpos
Aéyov docuissent, tum vero per-
gebant dicere Eum in tempore
factum fuisse mpoqdopixdy, et ex-
inde kar’ évépyevay et per ovyka-
TaBaow mporndnoa sive proces-
sisse ad Patrem Seseque mani-
JSestandum, et ad creanda universa.
Hane Ejus mpocdevorw sive pro-
cessionem ad opus Creationis
exequendum, aliquoties appella-
bant Generationem, memores illius
Yiés Mov ef 30, Syuepov TETEN-
NHKA 3é (Heb. i. 5; Ps. ii. 7).
Hee Ejus Generatio indubie fuit
temporaria. Qui vero, ut Hippo-
lytus noster, roy Adyov ab eterno
extitisse statuerant, Eum ab eterno
fuisse genitum agnoverant, ided-
que temporariam ejus genera-
tionem ad creanda universa de-
clarantes, Generationem Ejus

to the Heathen.

Father’s essence, whence, when the Father bade that 10

283

the world should be created in its single species, the

Word executed what was pleasing to the Father.
And some things which were to multiply by suc-

cessive generation He made male and female; but

whatsoever were for ministry and service, He created 15

either male, or not needing any female, or neither

male nor female.

For their first elements being

AEternam minimé abnuebant, im-
mo vero validissimé adstruebant.
Qui enim ex Patre yevyynrds et
Patri ovvaidios, dei cupmapay ar-
T@ kal cipBovdos, Eum ab eter-
no genitum fuisse satis constabat.
Rem optimé expressit nostri feré
eequalis Novatianus de Trin. 31.
“ Hic (Adyos) cum sit genitus a
Patre semper est in Patre, semper
autem sic dico, ut non innatum
sed natum probem. Sed qui ante
omnetempus est, semper in Patre
fuisse dicendus est. Nec enim
tempus illi equari potest qui
ante tempus est. Semper enim
in Patre, ne Pater semper non sit
Pater. Hic ergo quando Pater
voluit, processit ex Patre; sub-
stantia scilicet illa Divina cujus
Nomen est Versum per quod
facta sunt omnia. Omnia post
Ipsum sunt, quia per Ipsum sunt,
et merito Ipse est ante omnia
quando per Illum facta sunt om-
nia, qui processit ex Eo Cujus
voluntate facta sunt omnia.”

10. xeXevovros Iarpdés. Subor-
dinatur enim Filius Patri tanquam
sui Auctori et omnium Principio.

Ut Fabricii verbis utar ( Hippol.
ii. p- 15) “ mandandi et precipiendi
vocabulo de Patre, et obediendi de
Filio sine ulla offensione usos esse
constat non modo ante Concilium
Niczenum S. Ireneum, Hippoly-
tum nostrum, Origenem, et alios;
sed et post illud Concilium adver-
sarios et hostes Arianze heereseos
acerrimos, Athanasium, Basilium.
Vide Petav. de Trin. ii. vii. § 7.
Georgii Bull. defensionem Fidei
Nicene,” p. 133. 165. 170; iv. 2,
et in Epilogo Operis, vol. v. pt. ii.
p.- 291. Waterland. iii. p. 319,
320. Meminerit lector hac item
uti protestatione Nostrum de
Filio omnia Patris jussu formante
contra hereticorum illorum som-
nia, qui ab Angelis vel onibus
omnia facta fuisse impié comminis-
cerentur, de quibus Irenzus, ii.
55; iv. 37.

14. emi yevéoes. Mallem una
voce émvyevéret, i.e. continud serie
procreationis.

16. i.e. mascula tantum sine fe-
mind; quod propter Millerum
monuerim delentem #, et propter
Bunsenium ejicientem 7) dpgeva.

284 Address

ove OvTwY yevoneval, Tip Kal TYEdpa, VOwp Kab

con oy 7 ” , € , Qo ig
15 yn, ovre apoeva ovre Ofrtea vrapyew eExadorn

robrwy Ovyrat mpoe\Oeiv apoeva Kal Onrea, TARY

X an

el Bodbdo.ro 0 Kehebwy Oeos iva Adyos vroupyy.

> \ - ? 7 € > \ b) /

Ek rvupos eitvat ayyéovs opodoye@, Kal od Tob-
o / 7

Tous mapetvar Onreias éyw. “Hrwoyv dé kat

, sh / C / ? \ \ 4
20 ceAnvnY Kal AoTEpas Ofolws EK TUPOS Kal TVEb-

25

30

\ bl ” PLA a) me / ,
paros, Kal ovTE Apoevas ovTE OnXeElas vevoutka,
¢ ~~ \ > \
e€ Yoaros O€ Cea vyxra eivat Oédwv Kal mrnva
\ Put
dpceva kal Onrea’* oUTw yap exéXevoev 6 VeAhoas
> ‘ €

Ocds, yorisoy eivar THY bypay ovolav. “Opotws

? ane 7 \ / \ ~ /
Ek yns eptera Kal Onpia Kat ravrodar@y Cwor
v \ / e v4 ben ’ / € on
apoeva Kat Onrea* ovTwSs yap EvEedéyeTO 1 TOY

7 \ / >

yeyovotwy bots. “Oca yao 0€dnoev, Eroler
a 3 € 4 ,
6 Ocds. Tatra doy Eednmodpyet, Erépws yeve-
KX € Oe 6 a N/K
cOat pn Ovvdpeva, } ws eyevero. “Ore dé (i)
c > / \ ? , 3 / / > 7
ws nOeXnoe Kal Erroinoey, OvomaTt KaXEoas Eon-

Aut, si malis,

17. Cod. trovpyet, mutatum in -7. Miller.

tmdpxovow ore.” Miller.
29. “Ex precedentibus male repetitum 7 quod post dre dé legitur.”

Miller.

15, 16. “ Fort. imdpye éxdorns tovtav Svivarat.

19. ovre dpoeva ovre Ondéa
imdpxew ێxaotn Tovtev Sdvrat
mpoedOeiy dpoeva. Sic MS. men-
dose.
rovrav Svvara. Bunsenius vz7dp-

Millerus imdpye éxdorns

xet. ovr’ €& Exdortns TovTeay Suva-
Mallem tm apxn de
éxdotn tovtav Svvarat mpocdOeiv
a. kK. 0.

TAL K.T. Ae

21. Junge ei Botdouro va Ad-
yos vroupyn. Novatian. de Trin.
31. ‘ Filius nihil ex arbitrio suo
gerit, nec ex consilio suo facit,
nec a se venit, sed imperiis pater-
nis omnibus obedit, ut quamyis
probet illum nativitas Filium, ta-
men morigera obedientia asserat
illum paternz voluntatis ex quo

to the Heathen. 285

produced of nothing, such as Fire and Air, Water
and Earth, are neither male nor female, but under
each principle of these may arise either male or 20
female, provided God, Who bids, so will that the
Word should minister in making it. I profess that
the Angels are of Fire, and say that to them there
are not females. I believe that the Sun and Moon

and Stars are likewise of Fire and Breath, and are 25

neither male nor female; believing that swimming
and flying animals are of water, male and female, for
so God commanded, Who willed that the moist
element should be generative. In like manner from

the earth are creeping things and beasts, and male 39

and female of all kinds of creatures, for so the nature
of what was born allowed. For whatsoever He
willed, He made. He created by the Word these
things, not having a capacity to be otherwise than
as they were.
willed, calling them by name He marked them by
signs.

est Ministrum, ita quamvis sitet unum Deum in tribus Personis

But when He made them as He 35

Deus unum tamen Deum Patrem
de obedientia sua ostendit.” In-
ter recentiores qui hoc argumen-
tum tractaverunt satis erit nomi-
nasse Bull. Def. Fid. Nicen.
§ iii. 5. 1, et iii, 8. 4, Waterland.
vol. i. 2. p. 114, 134—140. 288 ;
vol. iii. p. 100, 268—274. 296. ed.
Van Mildert. Oxon. 1823, et p.
200, 1, de Hippolyto confitente

Patre, Filio et Spiritu Sancto.

26. e& vdarog dé (Ga vnxra eivat
6éXwv,—sic MS. Bunsenius 6éAo,
sic vertens “ I conceive that
from water have come swimming
and flying animals, male and
female.” Confer sup. Philos.
p- 258. 77. rovrov yeyovevat ai-
tov Oédovew, de Theodoti pla-
citis.

286

pLnvev.

Address

? \ , \ , wv
Ext rovrou Tov ravTrwv apYyovTa On-

A > ~ Y >] ~ > Py
plLovpyov EK TACWYV ovvGerwr OVOLWY ECKevacEey

(1) mAavd), aX’ avOpwror.

P.336 00 Oedyv OéXwy Torey Eodnrev, ove ayyedor

Ei yap Oedy ce

“~~ b J ~~
nOEAnsE Toinoal, Edbvaro" Exets Tov Adyov To

TapadEerypa* avOpwmov Oédor, avOpwrov O€

b] \ /
5 eToinoer’ et O€ OéNets Kal Oeds yevéoOat, UrdKove

Pie A \ 5p Pe / na dd a5 ~
TW TETOLNKOTL, KAL PY avriPawe VUY, LYVa ETL TH

cs \ \ \ / -~
pukp@ mioros evpeels, Kal TO péya miorevOnvat

OvynO7s.

\ \ b € VA a
kat Qeds, ovola vrapywy Oceor.

3 ~
Totrov 6 Adyos pévos €& adrov’ duo

‘O d€ Kéopos

to €& oddevds* O10 od Oeds* otros éeridéyerat Kal

héow Gre BotXerat 0 KTloas.

‘O dé krioas Ocds

\ > ? rd > ~ \ , ee \
KakOv OvK emote. ovde Trotet KaXoY Kal aya0or,

> \ A € ~ 4 XV / wv
aya0os yap 0 roy. O dé yevdpevos avOpwros,
6. Matth. xxv. 21.

38. Clem. Rom. ad Cor. i. c.
33. 6 Snurovpyos émi mac Td €&-
ox@Tarov kai wappeyebes Kara did-
voiay, avOpwrov tats tepais Kai
Guapo xepow emdacev ths ‘Eav-
Tov eixdvos XxapaxTnpa.

ib. Snprovpydv Cod. dnptovp-
yev recté Bunsenius.

39. Vide Phot. Bibl. Cod. 48,
qui Scriptorem de Natura Uni-
versi, quem Hippolytum esse vi-
dimus, sic disserentem proponit,
doédter ovykeioOa tov avOperov
€k qupos kal yns Kal Vdaros kal ert
€x mvevpatos, hoc est é€x macav

avvéerov ovotav. Pro cvvbérev

legit ovvOerov vir doctissimus R.
Scott. fortasse recté. ;
9. MH ITAANQ, eadem lo-
quendi formula utitur Scriptor
Demonstrationis de Christo et
Antichristo, quem ex indiciis cum
extrinsecis tum intrinsecis eundem
ac nostri hujusce libri Auctorem
eumque Sanctum Hippolytum,
Episcopum Portuensem satis, ut
opinor, liquet. Vide supra p. 165,
sive § 2. vol. i. p. 5. ed. Fabric.
ov yap €& idias duvdpews Epbéyyov-
To, (of rpopnrat) MH TIAANQ.
igitur Hippolyto
Deus, isque Patri 6pootctos idem-

4. Adyos

to the Heathen.

287

Over these, when fashioning the master of all, He

formed him from all essences blended together.
did not fail, desiring to maké a god or an angel (be P.336
not deceived), but a man.

He

For if He had desired to

make thee a deity, He could have done so. Thou hast
the example of the Word. Willing thee a man,—
He made thee aman. But if thou desirest to become 5
even a deity, hearken to Him Who made thee, and do
not resist Him now, in order that having been found
faithful in that which is little, thou mayest be able
to be entrusted also with what is much. The Word

alone is of God—of God Himself. Wherefore He is 19
God; being the Substance of God.

But the world

is of nothing; wherefore it is not God: the world is
liable to dissolution also, when He wills Who created
it. But God Who created it neither made nor does
make evil: He makes what is beautiful and good,
for He Who maketh is good.

But man who was born was a creature endued

que cuvaidiws. Ceterim de re
ipsa confer Tertullian. c. Prax. c.
5. Sibi Filium fecit Sermonem
suum, c. Marcion ii. c. 27. Ser-
monem quem ex semet ipso pro-
JSerendo Filium fecit.

15, Geds kaxdy ovk éroier oddé
moet Kaddv Kai ayaddy, sic MS.
Bunsenius, cds Kxaxdv od éroiew
ovdey €moiet od Kaddv kal dyabdr,
Sed leviore negotio res trans-
igenda. Interpunge post soxcei,

deinde iterandum zoei. Ceete-
rum his comparari merentur No-
vatianus de Trinitate, cap. 1—4,
de Deo Mali non auctore, et qui
expressisse Hippolytum, Hiero-
nymo dicitur auctore, in Hexaé-
mero Ambrosius, c. 8. Argumen-
tum, ré0ev rd Kaxdy, in singulari
libello, ut lemmata operum sta-
tuze dorso inscripta satis docent,
ipse tractavit Hippolytus.

288 Address

~~ , Ss / ~ 7
Cov avreeovouoy Hy, ovK apyov, ov voy Exon,
’ b] vy, \ > , \ 7 lA
150UK eémwvola Kal e€ovoia Kal Ovvaper TavTwY
es ’ \ A tw ” V9 :
Kparovy, adda dovAoy Kal wavrTa Eyoy Ta evaytla
~ / U \ , 6
Os TP abre~ovotoy UTAPYELV, TO KAKOV ETLYEVUG,
> , >] / \ b] ‘\ 3*%
Ex ovuPeBnKoros aToreNovpEVvoY fev OVOEV, EaV
\ rs
py Tons.
> \ \ >] 7 >] x >] *S ~
20 KAKOV, TO KaKOV OvomdleTaL, OVK OV aT apyTs,

~ \

"Ev yap r@ OédXew Kal vouilew tt
arr’ éxvywopevov. Ob adreEovolov dyvros,
, e508 ~ Se b V4 < b) \ \
vopos uo Qeodv wpilero, ov parny’ od yap i)
> eae \ / \ \ \ /
etyev 0 avOpwros To OédXew Kat To pH Oedeww TH,
14

O vépmos yap adéyy Cow

25 ody OpiaOhoerat, aAAA yadwos Kal paorié, av-

\ / De
Kal vomos wpiCero.

Oparw O€ évrodn Kal mpdoTipoy Tov ToLEety TO
\ ~

moooTeraypevoy Kal pu) movety' Trobrm vopos

woplaOn Ova Oucaiwy avdpdv exdvaber. “Eyyuov

ib. Cod. ¢yovra ep,
25. Cod. paorryé.

16. Cod. xparér.
evanida.” Miller.

21. “ Vox o& prorsus

18. Magistrum suum S. Ire-
neum hic sequi videtur noster,

Bunsenius legit ov« dpyovra vod
exov. Deinde kal mavra exov ra

adv. Her. iv. 9. “ Homo rationa-
bilis et secundum hoc similis
Deo liber in arbitrio factus et
sue potestatis ipse sibi causa est
ut aliquando quidem frumentum
aliquando autem palea fiat.” Vide
et Tertullian. c. Marcion ii. 5, 6,
quem citavit Grabius.

ib. odk Gpxov ov vovy Exov ovK
emwoia kai efovoia kat Sduvdper
mwavtT@v Kparovy adda SodAov Kal
mavra €xov ra evavria. Sic Codex.

evayria ita vertit “ having all sorts
of contraries in him.” ~ Parim
grammaticé, et contra sensum
Scriptoris, qui sic videtur ratio-
cinari: ‘ Homo libero arbitrio
preditus, non tamen dominio su-
premo donatus est ; rationem habuit
divinitus inditam, non tamen vi ra=
tionis omnia potuit moderari, sed
servi loco positus, et é variis ele-
mentis conflatus (vide supra, p. 335)
omnes contrarietates in se com-

to the Heathen.

a.

289

with free will, but not dominant; having reason, but
not able to govern every thing with reason, authority,

and power, but subordinate, and having all contra- 20
He, in having free will, generates

rieties in himself.

evil accidentally, but not in any degree taking effect,

unless thou doest it.

For in the volition or cogita-

tion of evil, evil receives its name, and does not exist

from the beginning, but was subsequently generated. 25

Man being endued with free will, a Law was given
him by God; with good reason; for if man had not
the faculty of volition and non-volition, wherefore

was a Law given?

For Law will not be given to
an irrational creature; but a bit and a whip. But to 30

man is given a precept and a penalty, for doing or
not doing what is commanded. To him a Law was
given from the first by the ministry of righteous

men.

In times nearer to our own, a Law full of
sanctity and justice was given by the instrumentality 35

plexus est. Quare, ut brevi rem
preecidam, pro ovx dpxov OY vovr
€xov levissima mutatione corri-
gendum arbitror otk dpxov ON,
vou €xov,—

22. rd Kakdv emvyevyG, ek cupBe-
Byxoros. Ita Miller. et Bunsenius,
sed jungenda videntur emvyevva éx
oupBeBnxotos. Malum enim non
directé vel ex necessitate oriri
dicit, sed mediaté et quasi per
accidens. Quaré sic reddidi.

26. Preclaré S. Irenzns, iv.
72, ravra rayra (i. e. dispositiones
Dei per Legem et Prophetas)

\ > 4 > , ~ >
TO avreEovotoy emdeixvuct TOU av-

O@parov Kal Td cvpBovdevtixdrv Tov
Ocod, drotpémovros pev Tov arecOeiv
a’t@ GAG p1) BraCopevov.

26. ob MS. ei ex conjectura
Milleri reponendum videtur nisi
malis od, udi.

27. Oedew Tt, Kal vopos wpifero.
Sic Miller. Bunsen. O€dew, ri xdv
vopos dpitorro; Sed manifestum
videtur legi debere OéXeuv, ri Kat
vopos @pitero; et jam video virum
doctissimum R., Scott. idem sta-
tuisse.

30. Vide Ps. xxxii. 9.

31. mpédormov vide ad Clem.
Roman. c. 41.

U

30

P.337

5

290 Address

t ~ \ ~ / een ’ \
NL@v Ola TOV TpoEipnpevov Mwivcéws, avdpds
-~ \ ~~
evaBovs Kat Deopirovs, vduos wollero mAHpns
, \ , A \ a rs
TEMVOTNTOS Kal Oucatoovvns. Ta 0€ ravra O.oiKel
c , € ~ € , \ ~ c
O Aoyos 0 Oeov, Oo TOWTOyOVvos TaTpos Tats, 1)
wv
0 Ewoddpov dwohdpos Pwvh’ Ereira Cleator
/ m. & ~
aVvOpES yeyéevnvrat piror Oeov' odros Tpopnrar
\ \ /
KEKANVTAL Ola TO mpopaivew Ta pedAovra.
= = ey \
Ois ovy EVOS KaLoov hOyos € YEVETO, adda ova
5 ~ ~~ /
Tacov yeveoy ai ToY Tporcyonéevwr dwval
5 ~~
evand0EKTOL TaploTayTo’ OVK Exel jLovoy Hnyika
me es 5 \ \ a8
Tols Tapovaw atekpivayro, adX\a Kal Ova wTacev
an \
yeveov Ta éodpeva mpoephvavro, dru prey Ta
J
Tappynpweva AéyovTes, VTEnipynoKoy Thy avOou-

~ = \ ”_
10 wornra’ Ta O€ eveotora Oeikvbvres, pn padupety

15

\ /

EreOov" ra d€ péANovTa Tpod€yorrTes, TOY KaTa

ant land ~ J
Eva Hav opdvras mpd moAdOD mpoElpnpeva
> ~ \ A ,
en@oPovs Kabicrwy, mpocdokoyvras Kat Ta peéd-

/ € ? € vas a io ?

Aovra. Toravrn 7 kaO nas zioris, w» wavrTes

vv b) ~ He 4 / xX
avOowrot, ov Kevois phpact reopéevwv, ovde

0 , ot Z / iO
CXE tag pact kao tas OVvVvapTa OMEVWY, OVCE TI-

29. Cod. Maiceos.

13. Cod. kabiorap.

37. Quemadmodum dixit noster,
c. Noet. §§ 11, 12, obros (6 Adyos)
éO@xey Nopuov kat Tpodpnras kat
Sods dca Ivedparos “Ayiov nvay-
kacev Tovrovs PbéyyerOat Sras
ts Ilatrp@as Suvdyews thy anéd-
mvovav AaBdvres THY BovAny Kal Td
BovXevpa rod Tlarpés xatayyeiAo-

aw" €v TovTOLs Toivuy mrodLTEVdpeE=
vos 6 Adyos epbéyyero repli EavTod,
#5n yap avris éavrod Knpv& éyé-
VETO.

39. Ex Psalmo cx. 3, ex yaorpos
mpo éwodpdpov éyévynod Se, unde
citat Hippolytus c. Noét. ec.
17,

to the Heathen. 291

of that Moses who has been already named, a devout

man dear to God. But the Word of God regulates

all things, the First Born Son of the Father, the
Day-spring Voice before the Morning Star. After-
wards just men were born dear to God, who P.337
are called Prophets, because they predicted the
Future.

To them came the Word, not of one time only;
but through all generations the voices of things 5
spoken before were manifestly present, not only in
that spot when they made replies to those persons
who resorted to them, but they predicted what
would happen through all ages. Besides uttering
what was passed they reminded mankind; and dis- 10
playing the present they persuaded men not to be
remiss; and foretelling the future they inspired each
of us with awe, when we saw what was long since
predicted, and thence expecting also the future
(which was predicted, to be fulfilled also). 15

Such, O all ye men, is the faith of us who do not
listen to idle words, nor are carried away by impro-
visations of the heart, nor bewitched by the beguile-

6. De Prophetarum veterum of- —- yor ra péADovra, ws Tpopyrns eivat
ficio vide eodem fere dicendite- voy.

nore disserentem Hippolytum, de 8. Trois mapovow, i.e. preesen-
Antichristo, § 2, of axdpior mpo- _ tibus, qui eos consulturi adibant.
para dpOadrpot ipa éyévovro, o8 — Prophetas Veteres cum Oraculis
pévov Ta map@xykéta eixdv- Ethnicorum comparat, que non
TEs, GAG Kal Ta eveorGra kai weA- — edebant vaticinia sua sponte, sed
Aovra A€yorres, iva pr) pdvov mpdo- _—rresponsa tantum sciscitantibus da-

kaipos elvat 6 mpopyrns Saxp, bant. dri Codex. Legerim ere.
GANG kal mdoais yeveats mpodrée-

u2

292

Address

Ouvorntt everetas Oywv Oedyopévwv, adda

Ovvaper Dela Noyous AeAaAHpEvors odK areOobv-

TOY.

Kat ravra Oeds exeXeve Adyy. ‘O oe

20 Adyos ép0éyyero éyor, Ov abrov erioTpegwr

\ v 3 ~ > / > ,
Tov av0pwrov ek Tapakons, ov Pia avayKns

dovtaywyav, aX’ én edevbepia Exovolw, mpo-

ape GEL KaAAQY.

Tovrov rov Adyov ev vorépors

\ / \ A
anéoredXev 6 TaTHp OvKETL Ola TeOPHToV AaXety,

b] ~ , € a /
25 ov oKoTELYas KNPYOTOMEVOY VTrovoEto0at Dewy,

aN’ abrovel davepwOhvar rovrov éywr, wa

~ ~ b ]
kdopos Opav OvownnOy ov evredopevoy dia

vo \ > a
ToocwTov Tpodnrar, ovde Ov’ ayyédou HoBodtyra

buynv, aX’ adrov mapdyvtra rov AeXadnKora,

~~ , ~
30 Totrov €yveaper ex Tmap0évov capa aveirnpora

/ Y ~
Kal TOY TadaLoy avOow ov Ola Kawns tTAaGEWS

mepopnkdra, ev Bip Ova maons HALKLas EAnAVObra,

cd ld € , « Mies, A > \ \
va TaCY NALKLE AUTOS VO[LOS yevnOy Kal OKOTOV

tov wv avOowroy Traow avOparots emielEy

25. éxoucio MS. én’ ehevOepiay
éxovoi@ mpoapéoe. Scott. Sed
legendum fortasse éxovaias.

35. tov maradov avOparov 81a
Kawns wAdoews ILE®OPHKOTA.
Sic Codex et Bunsen. qui sic ver-
tit, “to have put on the old man
through a new formation.” Sed
mendam subesse suspicor. Neque
enim veterem Adamum sumpsit et
gessit Christus sine peccato con-
ceptus, sed veterem refinzit et re-
novavit, ut nos protinus. essemus
in Eo xawvy xriows, vel kavdov pv-

papa. 1 Cor. v.7; Gal. vi. 15;
2 Cor. v. 17. Vide etiam S. Iren.
v. 14—16. Neque leges loquendi
dicere sinunt opety dia mAdoeas.
Quid multa? Legere mallem mi-
nima mutatione ITE®6YPAKOTA.
Vide etiam que de hac re dixit
Hippolytus noster, c. Noét. § 17,
ka@’ by tpdrrov éxnpvxOn, Kata Tov=
Tov Kal rapay epavépwoeyv éavrov
€x tapOevov Kal ayiov Ilvevparos,
Katvos avOpeamos yevdépevos, Td
peév ovpdvioy Exov Td TaTp@ov as
Adyos, 76 dé ériyetov ws éx mahatod

to the Heathen.

293

ments of eloquent speeches, and do not disobey
words spoken by divine power.

These things God gave as mandates to the Word,
and the Word uttered them by His Voice, turning
man thereby from transgression, not leading him
captive by the force of necessity, but calling him to

liberty voluntarily with free choice.

Father sent in the latter days no longer to speak by
a Prophet; and not willing that being obscurely
preached He should only be surmised, but bidding
Him be manifest face to face, in order that the world
might reverence Him when it saw Him not giving 30
His behests by the person of a Prophet, nor alarm-
ing the soul by an Angel, but beholding Him Who
had spoken, present in Person.

We believe that He took a body from a Virgin,

and fashioned the old man by a new creation, and 35

that He passed through every age in life, in order
that he might be a Law to every age, and by His
presence might exhibit His own manhood as a pattern

*Addp dia mapOévov capKovpevos.
Vide etiam Scholion Hippolyti in
Danielem (p. 205, Mai).

mparTordKov €k Oeod. - .

Adyov
. TpoTo-
rokov €x TlapOévov iva tov mpwrd-
mAructoy Addu ev aito@ dvarddao-
owv detxyO7 Adyos éx xapdias (Tla-
Tpos) mpd mavrav ‘yeyernpévos:
emvyciay Baoweds Ste ayOpwros
év avOparos eyevrvndn avarddo-
cov de airoy roy’ Addu. Eadem
feré leguntur apud nostrum, de
Antichristo, § 26, unde Scholium

Vaticanum corrigatur, dvam\do-
cov 8 éavrod tov ’Addp. Cf.
S. Iren. v. 6. “ Glorificatur
Deus in suo plasmate conforme
illud et consequens suo Puero
adoptans. Per manus enim Pa-
tris id est per Filium et Spiritum
Sanctum fit homo secundum simi-
litudinem Dei.”

36. Hee ab Ireneo mutuatus
est ii. 39, Irenei errorem devitans
ad annum feré quinquagesimum
Christi in terris vitam prorogantis.

i

This Word the 25

294 Address

\ > a
35 Tapwv, Kal Ov adrov ehéyéy Ore pindev érrolnoev

P.338 0 Ocds wovnpdy’ Kal ws adreEobotos 6 avOowros

Eywr To Oédew Kal ro pun) O€Xew Dvvaros Dv év
> / re \ ” b \ co b
amporepois, ov Tov avOpwroy eis prev TOU Kal

4 ~ , / >] \ 4, Seer an
nas dupaparos yeyoveva. Et yap py ex rov

’ om ~ 7 ~ ~ \
5 avTov uTNpse, prarny vomoberet pipetobar Tov o1-

X > | ~
OdoKxavov. Et yap é€Ketvos 0 avOpwros erépas
> a b] , , A, of , b \ a
erbyyavey ovolas, rl Tad dpota Kedeber Epmol TO
’ _ yA \ ~ e 5 \ \
acOevet wedvxori, kal mas otros ayabos Kat

/ ” ee ee De tas a \
Oikaos; iva 0€ pn ETEPoS Tap Has vopicOH, Kat

/ \ ~ / \ >
10 Kdparov UTépmeve, Kal Tey NOEANGE, Kal Oubyy

15

b) b] UA A: ef, b] / \ 7 >
ovK NovnoaTo, Kal UTVm Noeunoe, Kat TADEL OK
oa >
avreime, Kal Oavdrw wmhKovoe, Kal avacracw
b] / b > an) ,
ehavépwoerv, arapEdpevos Ev maou Tobros Tov
wv ” ° \ , XX" 2 a b >
LOloy avOpwrov, va ov Tacywr py aDvpiys, ar
f fan ~ \
avOpwrov ceavTov opmodoyav, TeocdoK@Y Kal GV
/
0 robTw Tapecyes.

10. Cod. dipeiv.

4. Codex of tov GOpamrov ye-
yoveva eis pév. Bené Miller. rod-
rov, optimé item Bunsen. iopev
pro eis pev.

13. Christum, Dominum Nos-
trum, humanum .Corpus_ veré
sumpsisse et humanam animam,
uxnv Aoyexyyv, et splendidissima
documenta dedisse rns dvOpemorn-
Tos te Kal ths Oedryntos, eloquen-
tissimé docet Hippolytus in nobili
illa peroratione ad sermonem suum
contra Noéti deliramenta, quem

integrum feré exscribere oper
pretium duxissem, nisi plerisque
obvium fecisset et notis adornasset
vir sacra eruditione non minus
quam annis venerabilis M. I.
Rouru. Eccl. Opuse. i. pp. 41—
89.

20. add’ dvOpamov ceavriv 60-
oyav, mpoadokay od 6 TovT@ Tap-
écxes. Sic MS. Corrigit Bunsen.
mpoodokas kai ov 6 TovT@ maTHp
mapécxev, audaciuscula muta-
tione et a tenore sententiarum

to the Heathen.

295

to all men, and thereby (by himself) might con-

vince man that God made nothing evil, and that man P.338

is endued with free will, having the power of voli-
tion or non-volition in himself, and being able to do

both.

Him we know to have been a man of the
same nature with ourselves.

For if He was not of the same nature, He in vain

commands us to imitate our Master.

For if that

Man was of another nature, why does He enjoin the

same duties on me who am weak ?
can He be good and just ?

And how then

But in order that He 10

might be known to be not different from us, He
underwent toil and consented to feel hunger, and
did not decline thirst, and rested in sleep, and did
not refuse His Passion, and became obedient to
Death, and manifested His Resurrection, having con- 15
secrated as first fruits in all these things His own
manhood, in order that when thou sufferest thou
mayest not despond, acknowledging thyself a man of
like nature with Christ, and thou also waiting for the
appearance of what thou gavest to Him.

aliquantum devia. Consolationis
fontem indicat Hippolytus in 77
Tod Adyov évoapxooet. Suspice,
inquit, Incarnatum jam_ glorifi-
catum. Deinde teipsum aspice.
Vidisti tuam ipsius carnem, quam
a te assumpsit, ccelo admotam, imo
in ecelo regnantem, deitate inso-
lubiliter consociatam 8:4 maOnpa-
rav dedogacpevnv. Macte, igitur,
bono sis animo! Passiones tus
terrene tibi viam sternunt ad

gloriam ceelestem! Si compateris
Christo cum Christo regnabis.
Tu carnem ei dedisti. Tu carnem
ab eo accipies gloriz consortem.
Vide Ireneum, v. 32, de hoc
argumento disserentem. Sed
quid cum aA faciendum? Est
enim dAX’ adv@peroy, ut opinor,
mendosum. Vide igitur ne pro
AAA’ ANOPQTION reponendum
sit ‘AMAN@PQIION, i. e. homi-
nem connaturalem cum Christo.

296 Address

Towvros 0 mepl 70 Oeiov adnOjs Oyos, @
avOowro.” EXAnvés re kal BdeBapor, Xaddaiot
rexal Aoodpiot, Aiybrruol re cat AlBves, ’ Ivdot
\ fs , \ ¢ “n
20 Te kal Aiflomes, KeXrot re Kat ot orparnyourres
Aarivo., waves te ot tiv Edperny ’Actar re
kal ABdnv Karouodtyres, ois obpBovdos eyo
, / lA ¢ 4 \
yivona, dravOporov Adyou vradpywy pabyris
kal piiavOpwros, Orws mpocdpapdvres Oday Oijre
25 Tap Hoy Tis 0 dvTws OeEds Kal n Tobrov eUTa-
kros Onjuovpyla, pi) mpoocéyovres codicpacw
’ / f ‘\ / ? /
evréyvwy dywv, pnde jratratois eEmayyeXiats
krePirdyor aipericov, aX’ adnOelas axdpurov
athorytt cevy, Ov fs éxvyvaoews exdeb&ecbe
30 ETEpyomevny mupds Kploews ameAny, Kal Tap-
V4 \ bd ’ / € \ /
rapov Codepov oupa adwriorov, v0 Adyov

a \ \ \ A b £,
Qwrvis pn KatraXanPOer, kat Bpacpoy aevyaov
P.339 Aiuuns yevvnropos pdoyos, Kat raprapoby wv
>] / ~ v wee | / ’ > a
ayyeédwy KodkacTov Opa ael pevoy ev amreEr§,

29. Cod. expev&era
Aappev.

31. Cod. fadepdv.
1. Cod. yevynrpos sine accentu.

- 82. Cod. xara-
2. Cod. pévar.

rhabonem carnis accepit, et vexit
in celum pignus totius summe

Quare sic interpretatus sum. Ju-
dicet lector. Commentarii vicem

expleat Tertullianus de Resurr.
Carnis,c. 51. ‘ Quum sedeat Je-
sus ad dextram Patris, homo etsi
Deus, Adam Novissimus etsi Ser-
mo primarius, idem tamen et
substantia et forma qua ascendit ta-
lis etiam descensurus. ... Quem-
admodum enim nobis arrhabonem
Spiritds reliquit, ita et @ nobis ar-

illuc quandoque redigende.” Vide
et Apostoli cohortationes, Phil.
iii. 21. Ep. Tit. ii. 18.

21. Hane Sancti Antistitis
mapaiveowy non ad fideles esse tra-
ditam, sed ad Christianis mys-
teriis nondum initiatos, jam supra
monuimus. Quare ne expectet
lector que cum dyuunros com-

to the Heathen.

297

Such is the true doctrine concerning the Deity, O
ye Greeks and Barbarians, Chaldeans and Assyrians,
Aigyptians and Africans, Indians and A®thiopians,
Celts and ye army-leading Latins, and all ye that

dwell in Europe, Asia, and Africa, whom I exhort, 25

being a disciple of the man-loving Word, and a
lover of men, come ye and learn from us, who is the
Very God, and what is His well-ordered workman-
ship, not giving heed to the sophistry of artificial

speeches, or the vain professions of plagiarist heretics, 30

but to the venerable simplicity of modest Truth, by a
knowledge of which ye will escape the coming male-
diction of the Judgment of fire, and the dark and
rayless aspect of tartarus, not irradiated by the

voice of the Word, and the surge of the everflowing 35
lake, generating fire, and the eye of tartarean aveng- P.339

ing Angels ever fixed in malediction, and the worm

municari non licebat. Ne, in-
quam, requirat disertam et spe-
cialem Christiane veritatis arti-
culorum enarrationem. Verim
enimyero recordetur, plura in
animo habere Hippolytum, quam
que palam ore proferat. Has
igitur Preesulis venerandi senten-
tias interpretari non aliter possit
quis, quam oculo intenté fixo in
arcana Christiane fidei mysteria.
Quod ideo monendum duxi, quia
quam hic labi proclive sit, mon-
stravit in his Anglicé reddendis
(i. 185—192) vir eruditus de quo
jam verba fecimus.

30. KAeWiAdyor aiperixay, “ of

delusive heretics,” Bunsen. Sed
vide sup. p. 5. 3,et p. 92, 92,
ubi eandem vocem (xAeWidoyos)
usurpat Noster, qua hereticos
plagii reos agat, utpote placita
sua 4 Philosophis Ethnicis suffu-
ratos.

34. raprdpov. Hane Ethnicis
familiarem vocem quasi conse-
craverat Apostolus, 2 Pet. ii. 4,
cepais (épov taprapocas. Pree-
iverant LXX Interpretes, modo
sana sit lectio, Hiob. xl. 15; xli.
24.

35. devvdov. Lege devaov.

2. dei pevoy Miller. Codex
bevy.

298

Address

\ / , b] , > ,
kal okoAnKa GHpaTos aTovolay EmioTpEpopevoy

> Trey \ ’ , ~ € > /
em. TO ExBpacav cwjla ws ETLOTPEDMY.

Kai

sravra pev exhebey, Oedv rov dvra diWayOels,

bd \ ~ ”
é£eus 0€ aOdvarov TO coma Kal apOaproy apa
~ rad > ’ an
buyy Bacirelay odpavov arodiby, 0 €v yy Biods
\ bd tA / 9 ‘ wv AI
kal erovpavioy Baoiéa Eertyvous, Eoy Oe ofu-

Anris Oeod Kal ovyKkAnpovdmos Xpicrov, ov«

10émiOvpias 7) mwa0eor Kal vécois dovdrodbpevos.

Téyovas yao Oeds' dou yao vrémewas waOn
Y F dof vp ft

” a a , ¢ ” > 0
avOpwros Ov, Tavra Oidov ort avOpwros Eis’ Oca

dé mapaxoXovbe? Veg, ratra mapéyew emhyyeArat

4, Lectionem Codicis, quam
dedi, Bunsenius ita refingit oxo-
Anka dmavoTtas: emiotpepopevoy
€mt TO exBpacay capa as emi Tpo-
pny, que sic vertit, “the worm
which winds itself without rest round
the mouldering body to feed uponit ;”
comparari jubens que scripsit 8.
Hippolytus noster de Universo,
i, 221. 24. ed. Fabr. oxodAn&
dravoTe@ 6dvrn €x T@paTos exkBpac-
cov. Qui hec scripsit, (ait Bun-
senius,) “non potuit non alter
scribere” quam quemadmodum
ipse Bunsenius scribenda pro im-
perio edixit. Verum hec et si-
milia ingenii nimium sibi fidentis
festinantiis ne dicam arrogantius
effutita, aliquando, ut arbitror, ipse
recogniturus est vir ingeniosis-
simus. Sed hec hactenus. Quid
autem de hoc loco statuendum
nune videamus. Hippolytus ver-
mem illum dreAevrnroy humani

corporis peccato obnoxii et vitiis
inquinati naturalem quendam foe-
tum, emanationem, ebullitionem,
et quasi despumationem a cor-
rupto fonte scaturientem et gur-
gitantem cogitare videtur. Quaré
sanissima est lectio vulgata dmov-
ciav. *Arovoia enim, vox me-
dicis non ignota, rem quamvis
denotat ab ipsa substantia (dd
Ths ovcias) profluentem, dmoppo-
Vv, aroomeppariopov, quo sensu
utitur voce dmovoia 8. Petr.
Alex. ap. Routh. Rel. Sac. iv. 345.
Hine in vetusto Glossario apud
Labbeum *Arovcia Detrimentum.
Ceetera proclivia sunt. Pro ém-
otpepov mallem émirpedov. Si-
mili feré sensu ovciay dixit Noster,
— wv éxBpaccopéry odaia, p. 222,
ed. Fabr. Minucius Felix, § 35,
de igne gehenne disserens: “ Il-
lic sapiens ignis membra urit et
reticit, carpit et nutrit, sicut ignes

to the Heathen.

299

the scum of the body, turning to the Body that
foamed it forth, as to that which nourisheth it.
These things you will escape, if you learn to know 5
the true God, and you will have your body immortal
and incorruptible, together with your soul; you will
receive the kingdom of heaven, you who have lived
on earth, and have known the King of Heaven, and
you will hold converse with God, and be a coheir 10
with Christ, not being enslaved by lust, or passion,

or disease.

For you have been divinized. What-

soever sufferings you have endured these are from
yourself, because you are a man, but whatsoever is
pertinent to God, this God has promised to bestow 15

fulminum corpora tangunt, nec
absumunt—peenale illud incendi-
um inexes& corporum laceratione
nutritur.” Comparari possunt que
in re diversé scripsit S. Clemens
Romanus, i. 25. onmopevns oapkos
ox@Anێ Tis yevvarac (tanquam
dmovaia) os ék tis ixuados Tov
rereAeuTnkdtos (wov avarpepo-
fEVOS TTEpoduel.

6. Vide Hippol. de Resurrec-
tione et Incorruptione, ap. Anast.
Sinait in Hodeg. p. 356. Hippol.
ed. Fabr. i. p. 244, et oratoria
vi et pulchritudine insignem et
lectu sané dignissimam Homi-
liam de Baptismo in Theophania,
p- 264. 6 Oeds dvayervncas (jpas)
mpos apOapoiay puxis Te kal
o@patos (lavacro baptismi) év-
epvonoer huiy mvedpa Cans.

1]. 2 Pet. i. 4.

12, Dixerant jam Apostoli, ho-
mines, Christi corpore insitos»
Ocias hicews eivat kowwvots. Vide
1 Pet. i. 23 ; 2 Pet. i. 4; Ephes.
i. 10; 1 Joh. iii. 9, et similia ex
Psalmo Ixxxii. 6, traducta vero
Gnostico tribuit Clemens, Strom.
vi. p. 816. Suvardy rov yroortixoy
#5n yevér Oat Gedy. “’Eyacina
@EOI *ESTE, xal viol ‘Ywicrov,
Tovs avayvdytas avroy viods av-
ayopever kat Ocovs.” Similiter
Origen. in S. Joann. t. xii. § 3.
Similiter etiam S. Irenzeus, iv. 75.
* Non ab initio Dei facti sumus,
sed primo quidem homines tunc
vero Der.” Vide etiam S, Iren.
v. 2.

14. didov. Sic MS. Bunsen. édi-
dov, vertens “ He gave them to
thee.” Pro AIAOY fortasse legen-
dum AIA SOY, “ per teipsum sunt.”

300

Address

Oe€ds, dre OeorroinO9s, aOdvaros yervnOels. Tovr-

/ \ ~ \ \
15 €a7t TO T'vwOt ceavrov, emtyvovs Tov metouKora

Océdv.

/ lon / 3 33 >) ~
ovpPeBnke TH KadovpLEevp VE avTO.

qn \ >] Cn c 4 ~
T@ yap ertyvovat eavroy, erryyvwoPqvat

M7 gu-

, / € ~ ” \ A
AeyOnonre roivuy eavrois, avOpwrot, pode TO

Tadwvdpopety O.oraonre’ Xpioros yap €oTw 0

16. Cod. ré yap.

16. dre Ocoroinbys. Ita Cod.
Bunsenius scribit érav OeoronOjs,
reddens “when thou shalt be dei-
fied,” sed supra dixerat yéyovas
Gcés. Legendum igitur videtur
drt eOcorroinOns, et sic Scott.

17. yéyovas Geds, aOdvaros ye-
vmGecis. Ad heec recté intelligenda
meminerit lector Hippolytum nos-
trum docere mnyiy abavacias sive
fontem immortalitatis esse fidelibus
et obedientibus Sanctum Baptis-
mum. Vide simillimum locum, qui
commentarii instar erit, Hippol.
Homil. in Theophania, i. 264, ed.
Fabric.

vev GvOpwros, €oTat Kai Geds, ei

, > > , A
ei ov Gbdvatos yEeyo-

dé Geds 60 vdatos Kal mvevparos
ayiov pera Thy THs KokvpBnOpas
(baptisterii) dvayévynow, evpioxe-
Tat Kal ovykAnpdvopos Xpiorod
pera THY ek vexpav avdoracty. Vide
S. Iren. v. 8; v. 12.

ib. yevvnbeis. Sic Cod. et Bun-
sen., vertens “having been born
again an immortal.” Sed Hippo-
lyti doctrina de baptismo non
intellecta, non poterat non in hoc
loco titubare vir ornatissimus.
Lege yevnOeis.

21. rodr’ éori rd Tv@Ot oeavrov
emvyvovs Tov memoiunKoTa Qedy: TO
yap émvyvavat éavtov, emiyvacbh-
vat ovpBeBnke TS Kadovpévo tr
avrov. Sic MS. Pro 16 yap éem-
yvavae Millerus ro y. e«. Bun-
senius transponit invicem clausulas
ervyvois—Oedr, et trovr éori—ae-
avrov, totumque locum ita inter-
pretatur, Thou shalt be deified being
born again an immortal, having
known God, Who has made thee.
This is the meaning of Know Thy-
self, For to know oneself befalls
him who is called by Him in the
very act of being known by Him.
Sed hee dcvorara videntur. Quo-
modo enim nosse Deum est nosse
seipsum, quia nosci a Deo est
nosse seipsum? Dicere videtur
Noster, hominem pervenire ad
notitiam sui ipsius per notitiam
Dei. Quaré sana videtur codi-
eis lectio, sed distinctione mu-
tata explicanda, ro yap éemvyvava
€avrov énvyvacbnva, ovpBéBnke
T@ K. U. ae :

22. pi pirexOnonre MS. quod
Greecum esse negat Bunsenius, qui
prexOpnonre legi jubet, sed €xOos

to the Heathen.

301

on you, because you have been divinized, having be-

come immortal.

This is the precept, Know thyself by knowing God

Who made thee.

called by Him.

For the knowledge of himself to
have been known by God, accrues to him who is 20

Do not therefore cherish enmity with one another,
ye men, nor hesitate to retrace your course.
For Curist is the Gop Who is over all, Who

non minus legitur quam €y@pa: et
prexOjs non mints quam Pirey-
Opos, quare nihil mutaverim.

28. unde raduvSpopety Stotdonre.
Vertit Bunsenius “‘ Doubt not that
you will exist again.” Mira sané
interpretatio. Quod quidem viri
clarissimi wapépapa inter alia qui-
bus feré innumeris Bunsenii pa-
gine scatent, minimé commemo-
rassem, nisi eum fundamenta fidei,
ut mihi quidem videtur, labefac-
tantem, et doctissimorum viro-
rum, et nominatim venerandorum
Antistitum Cestriensis et Mene-
vensis bonam famam dedita opera
ledentem non sine magno dolore
vidissem. Sed hoc piis eorum
animabus, hoc cause veritatis, hoc
juventuti preesertim nostree Aca-
demice debebatur Officium, ut
quanti sit facienda Bunsenii ip-
sius auctoritas, probé perspiciant,
et ne ejus effatis commoti maxi-
morum Angliz theologorum no-
mina venerari dediscant. Sed de
Nostrisensu videamus. Hippoly-
tus, ut Portiis Romani, civitatis
maritime et commercio dedite,

Episcopus, locutiones a re nau-
ticd desumptas sectari videtur ;
id quod in hoc loco factum vides.
Tladwdpopetvy enim dicitur de eo
qui procella in mari aperto subitd
deprensus, in portum, ex quo in
altum imprudentiis provectus

est, se illicd recipere nititur.

Hine, “O quid agis? fortiter oc-
cupa Portum ;” ipse sibi suc-
cinit, et “ mune iterare cursus
Cogor relictos,” hoc est madwdpo-
pety, sive ut se ipsum interpretatur
noster, Philos. p. 81. adppootvny
Tav meWonéevav Katnyopnoavtes
meicopev wadtvdpopetv emt tov
Tis adnOelas evdiov Aipéva. Vide
etiam p. 224, 29. éypiv rods dxpoa-
Tas mapamdeivy emi{nrovyras Tov
eWdtov Auéva, ubi obiter pro
IIPAZEQN @npév lege TWAPAZE-
NQN Onpdv. Cf. p. 81,6. Ce-
terim zaduwSpopeiy simili sensu
habet Theodoret., iv. 1222. madu-
Spopjoa mpds novyiay.

24. Hoe quoque S. Hippolyti
testimonium de Christo Deo cor-
rupit Bunsenius, legendum edi-
cens, Xpirrds yap €or @ 6 Kara

302

Address

20 Kara wdvrwv Oeods, ds THY apapriay e& avOporwv

>] , / ,
amvonA\vvewy mpooéTabe, veov Tov madawy ay-

mdvtav Geds THY auwapriay e& av-
Opdarav amomhivey mpocérage,
neque enim dixisse potuisse Hippo-
lytum, ait Bunsenius, “ Christus
jussit homines abluere peccata.”
Quaré hance esse sententiam Hip-
polyti statuit Bunsenius : “ Christ
is he whom the God of all has
ordered to wash away the sins of
mankind, renewing the old man.”
Nollem factum. Primum enim
quidni dixerit Hippolytus Xpio-
roy €ivat kata TrdavT@v Oedy, quim
in plurimis aliis locis Christum
Deum preedicaverit, et cim id
ipsum preedicantem Sanctum Pau-
lum legerat (Rom. ix.25)? Lege-
rat item Hippolytus que de hac
re scripserat Irenzus, iii, 17.
“In principio Verbum existens
apud Deum, per Quem omnia facta
sunt, Qui et semper aderat generi
humano et Hunc in novissimis
temporibus passibilem ; sic iii. 18.
Ipse Deus et Dominus et Uni-
genitus Rex Aternus et Verbum
incarnatum, preedicatur a prophe-
tis omnibus et Apostolis.” Quin
et ipse dixerat Hippolytus apud
Theodoret. Dialog. ii. p. 88. C. rd
TdT Xa Hua UTép Nuav ervOn Xpio-
Tos 6 Geds. Deinde quidni affir-
maverit Hippolytus Christum jus-
sisse homines abluere peccata,
quim Christus Baptismum insti-
tuerit, ut esset Aourpoy maduyye-
veoias (Ep. Tit. iii. 5) et quim
Idem Apostolos ad baptizandas

omnes nationes legatos Suos per
orbem terrarum miserit, et om-
nes baptizari jusserit ? quapropter
his ipsis verbis, que sine dubio
respexit Hippolytus, usi sunt pri-
mores LEvangelii Predicatores,
quim ad baptismum recipiendum
Christi nomine invitarent, (Acta
Apost. xxii. 16,) dvaoras Bamri
ga kal dmoXovgat Tas Gpap-
Tias wou, éemikadeoapevos TO dvo-
pa xupiov. Quaré ipse Hippoly-
tus alio loco sic scripsit, de Anti-
christo, § 3. eis 6 Geod mais dv ob
Kal jets TuxXOvTEs THY Oud TOD ayiou
mvevpatos avayevrnow. Quod au-
tem a Bunsenio (i. p. 340) video
allegatum, Hippolytum in dmo-
oracpatia quodam a Cardinali
Mai (Collect. Vat. i. P. ii. p. 205)
nuperedito, Patrem vocare Christi
Seordrnv id ab hac re est sané alie-
num, ut quod maxime, Ibi enim
Hippolytus enarrans vaticinium
Danielis, vii. 13, loquitur de
Christo Filio Hominis, ut ibidem
dudum monuit ipse Cardinalis An-
gelus Mai, minimé autem de Ver-
bo Patris éuoovcim. Quaré huc
illa Hippolyti verba non erant vio-
lenter trahenda. De Hippolyti
doctrina in hoc fidei articulo satis
jamdudum dixerat vir eruditissi-
mus Daniel Waterland, Vol. iii.
pp. 41. 105, ed. Van Mildert,
(A Second Defence of some Que-
ries, Qu. ii.), cujus verba candi-
do lectori attentits consideranda

to the Heathen. 303

commanded us to wash away sin from man, re- 25
generating the old man, having called man His

liceat commendare. Sarta igitur
et tecta manet Codicis Parisini
lectio, Bunsenii rationibus incon-
cussa ; et nobilissimum affert ca-
tholicee veritatis contra heereticos
neotericos, sive Socini assecle
sint, sive Baptismi efficaciam in
dubium vyocantes, testimonium.
Rem fortasse non injucundam
lectori fecero, si alium Hippolyti
locum hue apprimé facientem,
mantissze loco, subjecero. Quod
quidem facio lubentits, quia emen-
datricem manum adhuc expectare
videtur. Fervidioris animi ingenio
freena dans, et Asiatico more exul-
tans, Ecclesiam Navi comparat
Hippolytus, mundi, tanquam Oce-
ani, fluctus sulcanti. Ipsum au-
diamus; (De Antichristo, § 59,)
Oddacod éotw 6 Koopos, ev o 7
"EKKAHSIA, as Nads ev TeAdyet,
xeyacerar pev, GAN ovK aroAdvrat.
éxet pev yap ped Eaurns Tov €uret-
pov kuBepyntnv XPIZTON (nihil
adhue de Petro Ecclesiz clavum
tenente), héper dé ev péow kal
TO TpoTratoy Kara Tod Oavdrov, QE
TON oravpdy tov Kupiov Bacrd-
fovea. Ubi pro 2S TON legendum
conjecerim “ISTON, i. e. ferens
Crucem Domini quasi navis Ma-
LUM ; “Eotl yap airis mpapa pev 7
dvatoni), mpvpva Se 7) Svats, rd de
kotAoy (ita Gudius recté pro Kvk-
Aor) peonuBpia. Mallem ‘H peonp-
Bpia. Otaxes S€ ai dio Aradjxar
oxowia S€ mepirerapéva 7 ayarn
tov Xpicrod odiyyovca tiv ’Ex-

kAngiav. TIAOION 8 6 épe
pe? éauris rd NouTpoy Tis wa-
Atyyevewias dvaveovans Tovs
morevovras’ ubi pro IIAOION dé
legendum literis transpositis AOI-
TION 6€, i. e. ceterim verd, quod
portat secum inest lavacrum rege-
nerationis, d0ev 5) (legerem Se)
Tatra hapmpa, mapectw, as Tved-
pa, TO am ovpavay, (sc. “Ayiov
IIvetpa) 8? od odpayifovra oi
miotrevovtes TH OeH. Ubi repo-
nendum videtur é@ev AE raira
TA Aaprpa, et unde hec gloriosa
effunduntur munera, adest, sicuti
ventus, Spiritus ille_ ceelestis.
mapéemovrat S€ avr kal ayxupat
adnpat, avral rod Xpicrod ayia
evtoAai Suvaral ws aidnpos* exer dé
kal vavras Seftols Kal evwvdpous
@s aylouvs dyyédous mapédpous.
Legerem potits, vocula transpo-
sita, yee de, ‘QS vavras, dekcods
kal evovipous ayious ayyéXous Trap-
éSpous, 80 Sv det xpareirac rat
poupetrat 4 ’ExxAnoia. Kripa€ év
atitp eis twos dvdyovoa emi rd
képas eixkav onuelov mabous Xpic-
Tov, €AKovea TOs TLoTOUS eis dva-
Baow ovtpavav’ VHPAPOI Se emi
TO Kepas ef iyndod ATNOYME-
NOI rdéis mpopyray papriper re
kal drroaroAwyr, els Baowreiav Xpic-
Tov dvaravopevev. De his verd
quid statuendum? In loco vexa-
tissimo detur venia_ hariolanti ;
Lege VH®APA S€ él 1d képas eq’
bynrod ATOPOYMENA raé&is mpo-
dnrav. Sed quid, inquies, sunt y7-

304

Address

b a > ~ / b]
Opwirov amoreXk@y, eikdva rovrovy Kadéoas an

> lan O \ r \ ’ \ b 0 ,
apxXns ta TvuTov THV ES CE ETL ELKVUJLEVOS

\ e , ~
oTopyyy, OU TPOCTAYMACL uTakobvoas OEMLVOLS,

\ 3 ~
kat ayalov

bd \ / \ yy
ayaQos yevomevos puyntis, eoy
Spots Or avrod riypnbets.

la \
Xov yap mrwyever

\ \ \ Q \ , >] Od 9 mS
Ocos kat o€ Gedy rotnoas ets av avrov.

24. Cod. od mpoordypacw.

apa? Hippolytus ut apud Lati-
nos loquens Aatewife, et A Latinis
auctoribusexplicandus. Veniat igi-
tur Tertullianus, veniat Minucius :
uterque ad eandem rem collineans.
Hic ait Octav. p. 287. “ Signa ipsa
et vexilla castrorum, et vexilla
quid aliud quam inauratee Cruces
sunt et ornate ? Signum sané Crucis
naturaliter visimus in navi cum
velis tumentibus vehitur, cim ex-
pansis palmulis labitur, et cim
erigitur jugum, Crucis signum est.”
Sed propius ad rem _ Tertul-
lianus, Apologet. cap. xvi. “ In
signis monilia crucum sunt; Sr-
PHARA illa vexillorum et canta-
brorum stole Crycum_ sunt.”
Vides nostri Wndapd. Similiter
ad Nationes, 12. “In cantabris
atque vexillis SrpHara illa vestes
crucum sunt.” Memineris SipHara
fuisse coloribus vivis picta, et for-
mis herOum insignita, ut erat no-
bilissimus ille peplus Panathenai-
cus. Ecclesize cogita SrpHara
sublime suspensa, in aérem supra
navem Ecclesiz elata, Martyribus
et Apostolis, quasi ibi inter-

textis, insigniter decorata in
regno Christi acquiescentibus.
Képas de mali apice hic dici persua-
dent que supra scripserat kAiwa&
€nl TO Képas avayouca.

Ex hoc Hippolytei ingenii sca-
turigine hortulos suos irrigasse vi-
detur Auctor non indisertus Ope-
ris Imperfectiin Mattheum, Hom.
xxiii. (ap. S. Chrysost. tom. vi. p.
cv. ed. Montfaucon.) “ Quam-
vis infestatione Inimici Ecclesia
vel szeculi tempestatibus laborat,
quibusvis tentationum fluctibus
pulsetur, naufragium facere non
potest, quia Firi1um Der habet
GUBERNATOREM. Navigat enim
fidei Gubernaculo, felici cursu per
hujus seculi mare, habens Deum
GUBERNATOREM, ANGELOS REMI-
GES, portans Choros omnium Sanc-
torum, erecta in medio ipsa
salutari arbore (i. e. ior@, Italice
albero) Crucis, in qua evangelicee
fidei vela suspendens, flante Srr-
ritu Sancro vehitur ad portum
Paradisi et securitatem quietis
eeterne.”

Aodgéa T@ Oc@.

to the Heathen. 305

image from the beginning, and thus showing in a
figure His love to thee, and if thou hearkenest to
His holy Commandment, and becomest an imitator
in goodness of Him Who is good, thou wilt be like
Him, being honoured by Him. For God has ago
longing for thee, having divinized thee also for His
Glory.

APPENDIX A.

Tue following is from the Work of St. Hrppotytus “On
THE UNIVERSE,’ and is an addition to the Fragment already
printed by Fabricius from that Work. See above, pp. 153
—158. It has been supplied from a MS. in the Bodleian
Library, Baroccian MSS. No. XXVI. See “ Hearne’s
Curious Discourses,” Vol. ii. p. 394, Lond. 1773, where it
was published with some conjectural emendations by Pro-
vost Langbaine. See also Routh, Rel. Sacr. i. p. 32, ed.
1814. The present editor is indebted for a revised colla-
tion of it to Mr. Barrow and Mr. Southey, Fellows of
Queen’s College, Oxford. The MS. contains also the Frag-
ment in Fabricius beginning with ‘O Gdns Toros éoTiv,
p- 220.

Fragmentum S. Hippolyti * De Idem Fragmentum conjecturali
Universo” ex MS. Baroce. emendatione utcunque restitu-
26. tum.—Voces asterisco * dis-

tinctas jam suffecerat Lang-
benius.

6 pera Sixaiwv dpibyos diape- O pPEYaS duxaiwvy apiOpos d10-

, i eA 7 /
ve. avexAemros apa Sixaios MSs dvéxheurros, dpa Sixaious

> / ‘\ , a 7
ayyéXots kai trvevpacr @eodv Kat ‘yas = ithe ata — 3
Tov TovTov Adyov as Tov dixaiwyw = 7? ec, eee bi o ae
xopds avdp@v te Kal yvvaikev gee xoP sti efit bh es
Gyjpws Kal adOdprws Ssiapever VEN pee Bb ee ee apne ied
bpav Tov éri Tatra mpoaydopevov Sua. at “Et ears ooo ee
EN BIO mpoayopevov @edv dia THs TOD

Geov ba THs TOU ebtaKrov voyo- [EN BIQ] ciraxrov vopobecias.

Appendix.

Oecias ovvos Kal aca 7 Kricts
ddidAnrrov tuvov dvoiaer’ ard
tis pOopas eis dbOapoiav dSvavyn
Kat xaBap® mvevtparos dedoga-
open ovk travaykyns Serpos
auvxoOjoera GANA eAevOepia
féca Exovovov tov Tuvoy dpa
Tovs e\evbepwheiow méons Sov-
Nias dyyeAots Te Kat Trvevpacw
kat dvOpdéros aivéon Tov me-
mounkora TovTous éav miobévres
“EdAAwes xatadeierar tiv pa-
TaLbTyTa THS ervyevovs Kal xpy-
patrov amdpov codias Kat pi
mept Ades pyparwv doyxodov-
pevot Tov voov eis TAaVyTOWWwyTE
GANG Tois Oeorvedorois mpody-
tats Kat @eod Kai Adyous eEyyn-
Tais évxeipioavtes Tas dKkods
@cod micrevontrat éoecOar Kat
ToUTwy KoWwvol Kal TOV peAdOv-
tov tevgacGar ayabdv derpouv
Te ovpavod avaBacw Kal tiv éxet
Baoreiav dWeorOar havepds yy?
@cds & viv ceow2rnrar & ovre
ddOadpos cidev ovre ovs HKOVTEV
ovre él Kapdiav avOpurov avéBn
doa Hroipacev 6 Oeds Trois &ya-
Tacw avtov ef ols dveuvpw tuas
emt TovTOls KplWw TapEeKacTa.
Boaro réXos amravtwv ws TE Kal
Tw Ta €v TemoLnKOTL TOV Biov AxH-
Eavros de tov réXos e€oxnAav®
TN ™pos Kakvav dvonrot ot tpocGe
mwovot émt TH KaTaotpopy TOV

1 avon sed corr. in avowe.

2 Pro ei yap, ut videtur. davepd-
cet Southeio debetur.

3 éfdéke:Aay’ corr. in éoxnAay.

307

Siv ols Kal raca % Kriots adid-
Aeurrov tuvov dvoloe, ard Tis
bOopas «is adOapaiav diuvyh
kat kaBapod mvetiparos dedoga-
open: obx tm’ dvayKns Seo pots
cuvexOnoerat, dAAA éXEVOE-
pialovaoa éexovctov Tov vpvov
dpa tors eAcevOepwbdiow macys
SovAcias dyyeAois Te Kal mvei~
a ae 0 , 5 / *

pacw Kat avOpuros aivécer
tov Ilerounxdra. Tovrors éav
mea Oevres “EAXnves xataXei-
Wyre THv paraTyTa THS érl-
yelou* Kal pywaroordpov
/ ‘ ‘ ‘ , e ,
codias, Kal pm, wept A€Lers Pyd-
Tov doxoAovpevot, Tov vovv eis
mArXdvynow avyate, GAAa Tots
@corvevtaros podpiyras Kat
cod cat Adyou éfyyyrais éy-
xelpioavres Tas aKods, Oecd rLa-
revonte, EcecGe Kal TovTwv
‘\ ‘ lal rs 7
Kowwvol, kal TOv peAOVTWOV TEV-
fcobe dyabav, duérpou Te ovpa-
vov évaBacw Kal tHv éxet Bact-
dweobe avepwcer
‘ \ é - , ca
yap Ocds & viv ceoryrat, “a
ovte ddOadpos cidev ovre ots

Aelay

»” »¥ ) OB, dik >
HKovoev, ovTe eri Kapdiav dy-
Opdrov avéBn, dca Hroipace
c A a“ > nw > ¢
5 @cds tots dyaraow abrov
“Ed ois dv etpw tds, eri tov-
ros Kpwo*,” tapéxacra Boa

\ , Pee « ? ER
TO TéXOS GravTwY" WoTE Kal TH
TO €b rerounKdrt, TOD Biov 8
Angavros 7d TéAos CEoxeiAavre

? 1 Cor. ii. 9.

2 Vide Grabe, Spicileg. i. p. 14 et
p. 327. Ezek. xviii. 24 ; xxxiii. 20.

¥.2

308

Spaparos efabdw yevopevw Tére
XElpov Kal erurecvpévus Pu0i-
cavTt mpoTepov eartiv voTEpoV
petavonoavTt ToAAOd xXpovov 70-
Airelay wovypav éxviknoat To
pera THY peTavoLay xpov@ aKpt-
Betas, 5é detros roAARs trép THs
paxpavy acw* qerounKoct
MEN
copac. Suatns xplia Kal mpoc-
oxns TAeovos eotw duvarov
yap wows Gpdas aroxowar rabys
Tpop®... GAG pera Oeod Sv-
vdpews Kal dvOpw®..... . Kal-
cias Kal ddeXddv PBonOeias Kai
evAuKptvous peTavolas Kal OvVEXNS
pederns KatopOovra Kadov pev
TO py apapravew ayabdy 5é Kat
TO GpapTavovTas pETavoely, Wo-
ep Gpirrov TO vyvaivew Get Ka-
dov de kal 7d dvardaArat pera
THV vocor.
TO Oe@ Sd§a.

4 “Oow,sed O in loc. raso rescript.

5 orpod (ut videtur).

6 Post &v@pw desunt literze sex
aut septem.

Appendix.

mpos kaxiav, avovnto.* ot mpdabe
/ aes. al al a

movol, ert TH KaTaoTpopy TOU
8 , 3 10Aw / Z a
pdparos edfrAw yevonevw TO
TE XEeipov Kal éerirecuppevns Bud-
GavTt TpoTEpov, éoTw VoTEpoV
peTavoyncavrTe TOANOD xpdvov 7ro-

, ‘ > fol ~
Aureiav Trovnpav éxviKyoaL TO
pera THY peTavotayv xpovw* aKpt-
Beias Sé detrar wodAjs: Somep
TOLS MaKpaG vOow™* reroVy-
Kool pev oopact Siairyns xpeia
Kal rpoooyys wA€lovos’ eotiv du-

A \ * 3 4, >
varov yap icws GOpdws dzo-
Kowar maOys otpopyyv, adda

A a 8 4 >. mee 6 7
peta @cod Suvdpews, kal avOpa-
mov txecias *, cat ddeApav Bon-
Ocias xal cidukpwods peravoias
kal ouvexovs pedérns Katopbod-

\ 4 \ -, ee 4
Tau KaAov pev TO pn GpapTavew,
3 \ \ \ \ e /,
dyabov S& Kat 7d dpaprdvovra
peTavoely, MoTEP ApioTov TO dyt-
aivew del, kadov O€ Kal TO dva-
odjAa peta THV vocov.
T@ Ocd S6§a.

APPENDIX B.

Philosophumena, p. 315.

Oi de IepaGra, *’Adguns? 6
Kapvorws Kal Evdpdarns* 6
Ileparixds, A€yovow eva elvat
KOg}Lov Twa, OUTwWs KaAovVTES
Tovrov Tpix7 Sinpnpevov. “Eort
_ Te tpixns* Svatpéoews rap avrots

‘ we , a « 5
TO pev ev pépos, olov y pla
> ‘ / ‘ Ld >
dpxy Kabarep myyi peydAn, «is
> / ‘\ “ Ve a“
dzreipous Tomas TO ACY THNOH-

La © \ , ‘
vat duvapevn. “H dé rpairn roma
Kal mpocexeotépa Kat avrovs,
eR ‘ ‘ aA Py
éotiv 7) Tpias, Kat KaXetraL dya-
Oov rédcvov, péyeOos marpucov.
To dé devrepov pepos THs Tpiddos
olovel Suvdpewv arreipwv Te TAH-
Gos: tpirov, iduxov Kal éote 7d
pv mparov ayevvyror, dOev duap-

4 , a ‘ a
pyoynv A€yover tpeis Oeods, rpets
Adyous, Tpeis vos, tpeis dvOpw-
‘Exdotw yap péper Tod
Koopov THs Suupéecews Siaxexpt-

TOUS.

Theodoret, Hzeret. Fab. i. 17.

"Adeuns 2 6 Kapioruos, cal 6
Tleparixds Eiparys, ad’ ot Tle-
para. mpoonyopevOnoay ot rov-
Twv podpoves, Eva KOcpMov €lvat
dact tpixn Sinpypevov: Kal 7d
pev ev pépos, oldv twa aryl
elvat peydAnv, «is dzreypa Svape-
Givat TO Adyw Svvdpevov: Thy de
Tporyv Topnv Tpidda mporayo-
pevovot, kal Kadovow abriy a&ya-
Gov réAcov, péyeOos rarpixdv.
Td de Sevrepov Suvdpewv azei-
pov To wAnOos. Tod de tpirov
karovow idiucdv. Kai rd pev
mpatov ayevvytov Aéyovet, Kat
dvopalovort tpets Oeods, tpets Ad-
yous, Tpels vods, tpeis dvOpwrrous.
“Avobev dé ard tis a&yevvynoias,
Kal THS TPOTNS TOD Koo pov Stat-
pérews, Tap adiriv tiv TOD Kd-
opov ovvréAcay, év tots “Hpw-

' Hune parallelismum indicavit Bernays apud Bunsen. iv. p. xlv.

2 Supra "AxéuBns 5 Kaptoris, Cod. Kapolorios.
4 Debebat 38 ris rpix7 Siaip. Miller.

Tleparixds.
pla. Miller.

2 Cod. "Eppdrns
5 Fort. ofove)

310

/
pévns, Siddacr Kal Peois Kat do-
1.4 , 4 ‘ 4,
yous kat avOpurrovs Kal 70. oud.
»y a
Avwbev St ard tis ayevvnoias
Kal TiS TOD KOopoV TpwTNS TO-
” eA 7 ‘ cal
pays, éxt ovvreXeia Aowrov Tov
Koopov KabeotnkoTOs, KaTeAnAv-
/ o- 5% lal e , /
Oévar eri trois “Hpwidov xpovois
“A 6 + 6 ‘
tpipun ” Twa avO@pwrov Kal Tpl-
, \ 4 1A
oopatov Kal Tpidvvap.ov, Kadov-
pevov Xpiorov, ard Tv TpLOV
~ 4 a a
€XOVTA. TOU Koo HOV pEpav ev aiTa
TdVvTa TX TOV KOTMOV oVyKpi-
‘ x / ‘
para Kxal tas Suvdpes. Kat
Tovro elvat Peover 7d cipynpevov,
“ "E = cal a A ,
V@ KATOLKEL TGV TO TANpOLA
fol /
THs Oedrntros cdpari’.” Kar-
evexOjvat St dard tv brepKee-
4 4 “~ > rs
vov Koopov vo, TOD TE &yevy-
‘ v4
Tov Kal TOU avToyevvy7rov, eis
A ‘ iG > ee ev
TovTOv TOV KOoMOV, eV @ eo"
Hes, tavroia Suvdpewy o7rép-
para. KarednAvOévac dé tov
4 ~ Vase ae | 7
Xpicrov dvwbev ard a&yevvycias,
9 x iol 4 > a
iva, ua THs KataBdcews adrod,
, as DS a 6
mavra owln® 7a rpixn Siypy-
péva. “A pev yap, dyotv, éorw
+ / 3 ,
avobev Katevnveypéva, aveheioe-
tat du’ avrov, Ta dé eriBovdcd-
cavTa Tos KaTEeVnvEypEevols GdreEt
eixn, Kal KoAacOevra aaroméeuzre-
tat. Avo 8é evar pepn Ta ow-
4
Copeva, Aéyet, Ta trepKeipeva,
dzradrayévra THS POopas: 7d Se
tpirov amro\Awobat®, Sv Kdo pov
wy a a ra)
idvov Kade. Tadra Kai ot Iepa-
TAL.

6 Cod. rpipvhy.
® Cod. ardéaAvabau.

7 Coloss. II. 9 ubi cwpatixas.

Appendix.

Sov xpdvois KateAynAvbévan Tpr-
gun twa avOpwrov, Kal tpicw-
pov, Kat tpidvvapov, Kaovjevov
Xpiorrdv: Kal SuedOeiv tov te
ayévvytov Kéopov, Kal TOV avTo-
yen, Kat Oey cis rovde Tov
Koopov ev & éopev. KaredOov
d¢ 6 Xpwords, Ta piv dvobev
Katevnveypeva eraveOeiy ave
Tapackevacel, TA O€ TOUTOLS E7t-
BovAcicavra rapadwce KoAdoet.
Kai rov pev ayévvytov Kécpor,
kal tov avtoyern, swOjoecbat
A€yovot Totrov S& Tov Koopov
drokAtcGar, dv iduxdv dvopd-
Lovet.

8 Cod. cwOe?.

Appendix.

Philos. p. 318.

‘O 8& rdvoodos Sipwv ovrws
A€yes arépavrov elvar Sivapuy,
taityv pilwpa tov dAwy elvat.

\ ‘ 2 39 Ld 8 ,
"Eortt 5¢, dyoiv, 4 dwépavros dv-

jpn G airs? 252

vayis TO Tip Kal atrd', ovdev
dmotv kabamrep ot wodXol dra
A€yovres elvan Ta (Se)? téocapa

~ " A “~ c ~
oToLXEla, Kal TO Tp amodv «l-
vat vevopixacw, GAN elvar tod

‘ ‘ , “a \ “a
mupos THY piow Surdiv, Kal Tis
durdj y ade ro pev tu*

mAs Tavrns KaXel TO ev TL

\ ‘ ‘ 4
Kpumrov, TO d¢ pavepov, Kexpv-
pba dé ra kpuTra ev Tots have-

a ‘ a 4. ‘ ‘ \ A
pots 70 mip *; kal 7a havepa rod
mupos bd tv KpuTTav yeyove-

/ de ‘ "4
vat’ Ilavra d€, dyot, vevopiorar
Ta pépyn Tod Tupds dpara Kal
>/ , id
dopara ppovnow éxew. Téyovev
> ‘ c , /
ovv, paciv, O Koopmos a&yévvyTos
oi. % a» , , ”
amo Tov ayevvnTov zvpos. ~“Hp-
\ ‘ 7 A
Eato 88, dyciv, ovrws yiverOa
a-e¢/ ‘ , ” 93> a a
ef pilas Tas Tpwras THS a4px7s TIS
yevérews 6 ayévvytos Gro THs
> ”~ a“ ‘ > id a:
dpxjns Tod mupos éxetvou AaBdv
tavras yap pilas yeyovévat Kara
ovtvylav ard Tov updos, ds Twas
~ a bes ee ‘
Kadet vodv Kal ézivorav, pwviv
Kal dvoua*, oyurpov Kal évOv-
pyow.

Philos. p. 326.
Mapxiwy S@ 6 Tovrixds xat
Képdwv 6 rovrov diddcKados, cal
avtot dpilovow elvat tpeis Tas
1 Cod. kal? abrév.

bey Tot. 4 rod mupds. Scott.

2 Dele 5é, ortum ex 3. Miller.

311

Therdoret i, 1.

Sipov S rpdros, 5 Sapapei-
Tys & payos, THs TovTOU KaKo-
texvias broupyos avedavy.

Otros rodrov pidoy éyévvycer.
"Aretpov twa tréBero Sivapuv’
ravrnv dé piLwpa tov dAwv éxd-
Etvac d¢ airiv zip
epyoe, Surdnv evépyaav exov,
Ti pev havomevny, tiv Se Ke-
Kpuppeevnv: tov S& Kdopov yer

Aeoev"

vytov elvat, yeyevnoOar Sé &
THS pavopevns TOV updos évep-
yelas.

IIpGrov S& é& airiis mpo-
BrnOjvat tpeis ovlvylas, as Kat
pilas éxdAeoe: Kal THv wey mpw-
THY Tpoonyopevoe vodv Kal éri-
vorav, tHv Se devrépav, hwviy
Kat évvouav, THv Se tpirnv Aoye
opov Kat evOipnow.

Theodoret i. 24.

Mapxiwv 8, xal Képdwv 6
rovrov diddcKados, Kal avroi
pev éx THs Stuwvos eLararys
3 Cod.
5 An leg. Evvoay ?

312

Tov mavros® apxas, ayaboy, di-
RA ‘ \ 4
Katov, vAnv? tives Sé TOUTWY pa-
\ id 4 >
Onrat rpooribéact, Aéyovres aya-
\ 4 A 7 e
Odv, Sikatov, rovnpov, tAnv. Ot
ee . eee ee elle 253,
€ wavra’, Tov pev ayaloy ovdev
+ / \ \ ,
dAXws awemrounkevat, Tov de di-
c \ \ \ e ‘
KQLOV, OL pev TOV TovnpoY, ot Se
4 4 > /
povov dixatov d6vop.cLover, TeToUN-
/ \ ‘ 4 4
kevat O€ Ta TdvTa hdoKovoW
€x THS UroKkeevys LANs’ TeToun-
Kevan yap ov Kadas, add’ dddyus.
> 4 ‘ 5. l4 9
Avaykyn yap 7a yevopeva opowa
elvat TO TerounKdte Od Kal Tals
mapaBoXats Tats edayyeAtKats ov-
Tws xpoavrat A€yovres: “OD Sv-
/ ‘ \
vata. Sévdpov Kadov Kapmrovs 7ro-
\ a 899 4 8 eer 3
vnpovs mroveiy *,”’ Kat ra é&js, «is
Touro dackwy cipnoba Ta ta ai-
Tov de

A > \
Xpurrov vidv etvat Tov d-yabod Kai

“~ cal s
TOU KaK@s voptlomeva.

Pw) 5 ~ , > A
tir avrov meréudOar éxi ocwrn-
‘4 ~ lal a » »
pia Tov WvxGr, dv éow avOpwrov
Kael, as avOpwrov pavevra Xé-
> »” »” aia
yov obk ovta avOpwrov, Kal as
évaapKov ovK évoapKov, SoKycet
mwepyvora, ote yeverw dropei-
vavra ovte Tafos, GAAG Th So-
kev. Sdpxa dé ov OéAeu aviora-
cba: Tapov dS¢ pOopay ectvat
Xe , Bi , 9
éyav kuvikatépo Biv rpocdywv
‘ \ > 4, ,
Tous pabynras, év TovTots vopilwv
lal ‘ na
Avureiv tov. Snptovpyov, «i Tav
° a x
tr avrod yeyovdrwy 7) apurpe-
vov aréxouro.

6 Cod. rods mayrés.

vii. 18. ® Corrig. mpocdye.

7 Leg. videtur of 5¢ rdyres. Miller.
Miller.

A ppendin.

m»” ~
eAaBov tis PBAacdynpias tas
ddoppas, add’ érépay éxatvord-
pynoay aoeBeias dddv.

c

O d€ Mapxiwy 6 Tovrixds,
Tatra rapa Képdwvos raidevbeis,
ovx éotepge tiv mapadobeicay
dWacxadiav, ard niéyoe Ti
3 / / ‘ >
doéBeuv. Térrapas yap dayev-
vaTous ovcias TH Adyw SiérAace.
Kat rov pev éxdderey ayabov te
kal a@yvwotov, ov Kal marépa
mpoonyopevoe TOD Kupiov: tov
dé Syprovpyo i dé 0

mptoupyov Te Kal Sixavov, Ov

‘ X\ > , ‘ \
Kat tovnpov a@vopate. Kai mpds
TOUTOLS TI VANV, KAKHV TE OVTAY,
kal tir GAA» KaK@ TeAodoav.
Tov dé Sypcovpydv wepryevopevov
TOU KaKoOd, THV VAnv AafPeliv Te,
Kal éx tavrys Snurovpynoa Te
ovpravTa.

8 S. Matth.

A ppendiv. ’

Philos. p. 327.

Kypw6os 88 6 ev rH Aiyirrw
doknGels adros ovx trd rod
mpwtov Ged tov Kdcpov yeyo-
vévae 70éAnoev, GAN sid Suvd-
peds Twos dyyeduxis,
Kexwpiopevys Kal SuerrwHons THs
brép ra dAa aiPevrias, Kal dyvo-

woAv

, ‘\ « \ 4 / ‘
ovens Tov brtp mavta Oedv. Tov
~ 2 a ld \ > ,
dé “Tycoty A€yee py ex trapOevov
yeyervija bau yeyovévar S& adrov
€€ “Iwo cat Mapias vidv, é.0v0v
nw nm > , \
Tois Aourois avOpwrrois, Kat Svevy-
voxévat ev duxavootvy Kal owdpo-
avvy Kat ovvéce. irep mavras
tovs Aowrovs: Kai perard Baz-
id > F._ %
Tispa KareAnAvbevar eis adrov
> “” € \ ‘ bd > 4
ex THs trép Ta OAa aidertias
‘ ‘\ > » ca
Tov Xpuorov év cider wepirrepas,
Kal tore Kypvfar Tov a&yvwortov
, ~~ , > s
marépa Kal Suvdpets eriredéoat.
IIpos d¢ ra reAc Tod wafovs
3 “A ‘ \ > A “a
arorrTynvat TOV Xpirrov amo Tov
e a2 4 ‘ > “a
viod?+ werovOévar tov *Inooiv,
tov & Xpiorov drafh pepevy-
Kévat, mvedua Kupiov imdp-
xovra.

Philos. p, 328.

"Erepou 82 xal é€ abrév ravra
Trois Tpoeipynpevots A€yovow *, Ev
provov évouAAdkavres ev TH TOV
Mayuocdék ws Sivapiv twa tr-
eAnpéevat, packovres adrov trép

1 Cod. yeyevic@a.
3 Cod. Aéyoust.

2 "Incod. Scott.
@ An dmorrivat

313

Theodoret i. 3.

Kara dé rov abrov yxpdvov Kal
KypwOos érépas fipfev aipérews.
Otros év Aiyirrw mciorov dia-
tpivas xpdvov, Kal tas dpiAoad-
ous mawWevbels eriotipas, vore-
pov «is tiv “Aciav ddixero, cal
as &x Tis ol-
Kelas mpoonyopias § dvopacev.
"Bdake Se obros, va pev elvac

Tov Tav dAwv @edv, oi adrov be

\ Pa.
TOUS OLKELOUS

~ , ‘
elvat Tov Kdopov Syptovpydv,
GAA Suvdpes Twas Keywpiurpe-
‘ ad a= 4 > 4
vas, Kat TavTeA@s abrov dyvoov-
cas. Tov Incodv 88, rots “EBpai-
os mapatAncins éepyoe Kara
, > > ‘ a s
pvow e dvdpds yeyevvjobat kai
yevaikds, ToD “Iwond Kal Tis
Mapias, cwdhpootvy 5 Kat de
Kavoctvy Kai tots dAdo dya-
ois Svarpéyar. Tov d& Xpurrdv
> »” ad »” >
év cide. mepiorepas avwhev eis
es “~ ‘ a“
avrov KateAOeivy, Kat TyVviKadra
‘ > 4 4 ‘
Tov adyvoovpevov Kypvfar cov,
‘ \ > / > /
kal Tas dvaypamrrous ériredéoat
0 7 ‘ de ‘
avparoupyias. Kara 0o€ tov
Tov mdQous Kaipov, aroorivat®
pev tov Xpworov, ro Sé wados
iropeivat Tov “Inoodv.

Theodoret ii. 6.

Tots 8 Medyuwedexiavors,
Tyna pev eva tovtwy act,
Kal ev de povov diadwveiv, 7d
Tov MedAyuoedéx dvvapw twa Kat
Ociav kai peyiornvy trodapBa-

314

A § , € 4 34 hd
TACAY OVVOULLY UTAPXELV, OV KAT °

eixova. 5& «lvau tov Xpiorov Oé-
Aovow.

Philos. p. 329.
“Erepot d¢ adtav*® tH Tov Non-
TlAVOV aipéoe. TpooKEipevol, TH
x ee , \6 a
pev Tept Ta yuvata Kat” Movta-
« / “a ‘ \ ‘
vov dpoiws Soxodor, Ta Se zrepi
tov oAwv Iarépa dvadnpodtow,
a 8 > ex ‘ / /
avrov €ivat viov Kal marépa dé-
yovres, Oparov Kat adparor, yev-
vyTov Kat a&yévyytov, Ovyrov Kal
> , = ‘ > ‘
a@dvarov. Otrot tas adoppas
‘ lal
do Noyrod twos AaBorres.

Philos. p. 329.
€ 7 X \ \ “ x
Opoiws dé kai Noyros 7d pev
yever Gv Spupvatos, avip axpird-
pvOos Kai rouxidos’, eionynoaro
/ 9 > /
toudvoe aipeow e& "Extydvov ti-
‘ > KA , ,
vos eis KAcopéevyy xwpjoacay,
Kal otrws éws viv él Tovs diadd-
, id a ‘
xous duapeivacay, Néywv Eva Tov
Tlarépa kal @cdv Trav 6AwY* Tod-
Tov wavTa meroinKéra, adavy
‘ “~ s / A > ,
Hav Tots ovat yeyovévar OTe HBov-

4 of. Scott.
7 Cod. oiuiAos.

5 Montanistarum sc.

Appendix.

vew, Kar eixova dé adrovd Tov
Xpurrov yeyevjoOa. "Hpge de
THs aipécews TavTys GAXos Med-
Soros, dpyvpaporos THv TéxvyV.

Theodoret ii. 2.

Twes d€ ait&v tas tpels tro-
atdcets THS OedryTos SaPBedAio
TaparAnciws npvycavro, TOV av-
Tov elvat A€yovres Kal Ilarépa, ©
kat Yiov, kat dyov ITyvedpa,
raparAnociws To Acvave None.
Kara tovtwy ocvveypaey “Azro-
Awdpios, 6 THs Kata PDpvyiar
iepas 7oAEws éxiocKomos yeyovas,
avnp déérawvos, Kal mpds TH
yroce tov Oeiwy Kai tH obey
moawdelav tpoceAndas. ‘Ooav-
tws O¢ kal MiAriadys, Kat “AzoA-
Awvios, Kal ErEepor ovyypadéis.
Kara 82 IpoxAov tis airis ai-
pécews mpootareicavTos ouv-
éypaive T'dios, ov Kat mpdobev
épyno Onpev.

Theodoret ii. 2.

“O dé Noynrés, Spupvatos peév
S \ / > - \ ‘\
qv TO yevos, avevedooaro b& THY
9 aA ‘4 ,
aipecwv, qv Emiyovos pe tis

7 4 3 / lal
ovTw Kahovpevos arekinoe TPO-
tos, KAcouévns 5& zrapadaBov
éBeBaince.

aipécews TH Kepddaua.

Tatra d€ éore THs
“Eva
actly «iva @cdv kai Tarépa,
Tov Awy Syurovpyov: apavn pev
drav eGéhy, hatvopevov dé Hvixa

6 Pro xat fort. kard. Miller.

Appendix.

Aeros havavar Se rore Gre 7)0€An-
oe’ Kal Tovrov elvat ddparov Ore
> 2 me c A bid cn
pa Sparau: dparov dé, drav dpa-
tau dyévvyrov Se, Grav pi) ye-
vara yevvytoy Se, Grav yewva-
Tat ex tapGévov, draby Kal abd-

v ‘ / id 4
varov, drav pn Tdoxn pare Ovi-
oxy érav S5& 2ra0y rpocédAOn,

Ud ‘ , A ‘
macxew Kat OvyoKew TovTov Tov
marépa* avrov vidy vopifovor
‘ ‘ , ~
KaTa Kaipovs Kadovpevov mpos
‘ ‘A 4 ‘
Ta ovpBaivovra. Tov’twy tiv
aiperw éxpdtuve KddXuwrtos, ob
tov Biov éxreBcincba aopadas *,
ds kal airos aipeow dreyevynoe"
e€ dv adoppas AaBov Kal airos
dporoyav eva elvar Tov watépa
kal Gedy rovrov Syptovpyov tod
mavTos, TovTov Sé «iva vidv dvd-
part pev Aeyomevov Kal dvopalo-
pevoy, ovcia de [ev*] evar, rved-
‘ ‘ c \ > 4 id
pa. yap, pyciv, 6 Geds odx Erepdv
éort mapa tov Agyov 7) 5 Adyos
‘ ‘ / = an
mapa tov Oedv' ev ovv TovTo
, AE /
mpocwrov 6vopate pmev pwepiloe-

2. \ » “~ A
vov, ovcig de ov. Todrov tov
Adyov éva etvat Gedy dvopdler Kat
geoapxocba. Aye. Kai rov
pevy Kara odpka dpdpevoy Kal

, eX , 38
Kparovpevov vidv elvat Peder", rov
S¢ évoixotvra marépa, more pev
TO Noyrod* ddéypart repyppyyv-
pevos®, wore 5¢ rH Ocoddrov, py-
dev dogades Kpatav. Taidra roi-

vuv KadXuoros.

8 Fort. éxredelucda cadpds.
1 Cod. 6éAcw. 2 Cod. Nonr@.
literis evanidis.

Miller.

315

av BovAnrau: kal rov abrdv ddpa-
Tov elvat Kat dpwpevov, Kal yev-
vnrov Kal dyévyytov’ dyévynrov
pv e& dpyas, yevvyrov 5é bre ék
mwaplévov yevvnbiva. 7OAnce
dma0n Kat GOdvarov, Kat wédw
av ma0yrov Kat Ovnrov. *Ara-
His yap dv, pyot, 7d Tod ocrav-
pod mwdbos CeAjoas imréeueve.
Tovrov kai Yiov édvopdLovere Kai
Ilarépa, mpos Tas xpelas TovTo
Kakelvo KaXovpevov. Noyriavot
mpooryopevOnoav ot ryvde Tiv
aipeow orépgavres. Tavrns pera
tov Nonrov trepjomure Kaddd-
oros, ériyjKxas Twas Kal ovTosS
erwonoas TH SvoceBelg. Tod Sdy-
paros.

® Addidimus éy. Miller.
3 Cod. wepipyy . . mevos, duabus

316

Philos. p. 330.
e 4 , \ t Bae!
Eppoyévyns S€ ris Kat adrods
Oednoas tu NEyerv, Ey Tov Oedv
> 9 / XN ec ,
e€ vAys ovyxpdvov Kai troKeye-
VNS TA TaVTA TeToLnKeval’ Gdv-
4 ‘ 4 A \ ‘ 2-4
vatus yap exew Tov Gedy py odxt
e€ Ovrwv TA yevopueva Tovety.

Philos. p. 330.

"Erepo. S€ tives ds KaLvov TL
TapEeoayovrTes Ek TATOV aiperewv
epavicdpevor Sevnv BiBXdov oxev-
doavres Hiyacat * twos érovo-

/ b \ \ > ‘
palopevnv, ovro. Tas pev apxas
Tov mavTos Spoiws duodoyodoty
Lea! A ~ / \
br Tov Oeod yeyovevar, Xpurrov

es a
dé Eva ox dporoyotcw, add
> \ SS »* A E Yon. s
elvat TOV pev avw eva, avrov dé
perayylopevov év copace [roA-
Nois*] wodAdkis, Kal viv dé ev
° T Ov 6 7 [ } XX \ >
TO Inood dpoiws [lore pev éx
tod Oeot yeyeviobat, more Se
mvebpa yeyovevat, mote de &k
mapGévov, Tote 5¢ ov. Kail tod-
X\ tf BA - 9 A
tov d€ peréreta del &v oHpact
perayyilerOar Kat év zroAXots
Kara Katpovs Seixvuc bat.

Xpavrar Se émalorldats Kat
Barricpacw éxi tH TOV oTOL-
xelwv dporoyia. YeroByvrar de
wept GotpoAoyiav Kal palnua-

4 Titulus rubricatus "EAxacaira.
sed non prorsus certa. Miller.

Appendix.

Theodoret ii. 19.

‘O 8 “Eppoyerns é izroxeype-
vns vAns Kal ovvayevvyTou TOV
@cov ey Snprovpyjoa Ta TavTa.
“Advvarov yap tré\aBev 6 eu-
Bpovryros kai TG Oecd THv drow,
ex pn Ovrwv Snp.roupyeiv.

Theodoret ii. 7.
Ot d€ "EAxecaiot, éx twos EA-

Keoal THS alpérews ap~avtos THV
oA v >

mpoonyopiav AaBevres, ex Sia-
opwv aipécewy piOous épavird-
pevot, THY oixelav ovvTeeikact
mAavnv. Kat rept pev tiv Tov
7 3 ‘ na can

dAwy apxyv cvpduwvotow jut.
‘Eva yap a&yevvytrov déyovor, Kal
TOUTOY TOV amavTwV KaAovat dy-
puoupyov.
A€yovoew, GANA Tov pev avw, TOV
Kat rovrov rdXAat 7oA-

a ,
dois evoxykevat, torepov Se Kar-

Xpurrov de ovx eva
X 4
d€ KaTO.

eAnAvbévau: tov Se “Incoty, ore
pev &k Tod @eod civar pyot, wore
S& mvedua Karel, tore S& wap-
Oévov éoynKevat pytépa. “Ev ad-
ois O€ ovyypappacw odd TotTo.
Kai rodrov dé réAw perevowpa-
TtovcOat, Kai eis GAAa teva oo-
4 \ 7

para déye, Kal Kal Exacrov Kal-
pov Siaddpws SeixvvcOat. “Exr-
wdats S€ kat Sapovev érixAjoect

‘ 5d / ‘\ /
Kat ovrou Kéxpyvrat, kat Bamri-
opaow eri TH TOV CTOLxELwy bjpo-
Aoyia. “Aorpodoyiay Se, Kat
payiKny, Kal pabnuarikiy Howd-

5 Vocis moAAots vestigia exstant

Appendix. 317

rTuciv, Kal payucois®. IIpoyvw- fovro mAdvny, xai Mpoyvwort-

atixods 5é éavtods Aéyovow. Kovs éavrods mpooryopevov. Tov
8¢ dadaroAov ravredds HpvnOy-
cav: Kat BiBdov S€ twa ovvre-
Oeixacw, iv éx TOV otpavav épa-
cav rertwxévat. Tavrys Tov akn-
Kodra ddeow dpapriav AapBa-
vew tap tv & Xpurros edwp7-
caro.

6 Literee dorp plane evanidse, Post mayicots excidit fortasse érrénvra.
Miller.

APPENDIX C.

Tue mention of St. Potycarr, the disciple of St. John, and
Bishop of Smyrna and Martyr, whose name occurs not unfre-
quently in the foregoing pages, suggests an occasion for sub-
mitting a question to the consideration of the reader, in reference
to the History of his Martyrdom, as narrated in the contemporary
Letter of the Church of Smyrna, and transcribed by Caius, sup-
posed by some (e.g. by Ussher) to be, perhaps, Caius the Roman
Presbyter (mentioned above, chap. iii.), from the copy of St.
Irenzeus, who had conversed with St. Polycarp. (See Eccl. Smyrn.
Epistola de S. Polycarpi Martyrio in Petr. Apostol. Coteler. ii.
p. 204, Amstel]. 1724, or Jacobson ii. p. 595, ed. 1838.)

In that interesting narrative of St. Polycarp’s Martyrdom it is
related (cap. 16.), that the body of the venerable Bishop not
being consumed by the fire which was kindled by the heathen
officers, in order that he might be burnt therein, orders were
given to the executioner to pierce him with a short sword. The
original words of the Letter are as follows, wépas oty iddvres ot
dvopo. ov Suvapevovy aitod To cdpa tid Tod mupds SarravnOjvat,
exéAevoav tpooedOorvta aitd Koudéxtopa wapaBioa Evpidiov. The
Letter then proceeds to say,—according to the received reading
of the passage,—xat todro toujoavtos, éé7AGe ITEPISTEPA KAI
mwAnOos aiparos, dore KatacBéoa TO zip i.e. “a Dove came
forth, and a stream of blood, so as to quench the fire.”

The old Latin version is as follows, ‘‘ Quumque hoc ita fuisset
effectum, ecce subito fluente sanguinis copia CotumBa processit
de corpore, statim sopitum cruore cessit incendium.” But the
Dove, which is so strangely combined in this passage with the stream
of blood, appears to owe its origin to an erroneous reading.

Appendix. 319

Eusebius had it not in hiscopy. He has transcribed the Lerrer,
nearly verbatim into his History, and writes thus (Euseb. iv. 15),
éxéAcvorav Koppextopa rapaica: Eihos, kal TotTo roumpoavros e&pAGe
mAnOos aivaros. Nor had Nicephorus any mention of the Dove
in his MS. of the Letrer. His words are (iii. 35) éxéAevdy twa
viéar giher tov aywv whe’ ob d) yevopévov rAHOGos aiparos
efeppvy, ws ikavds yew Karapapalvew tiv axpajv Tod Tupés.

[f the D ove hid been mentioned in the Letter, as read by
Eusebius and Nicephorus, it is not likely that they would have
omitted to notice it.

In short, the words ITEPISTEPA* KAT appear to be corrupt,
and ought, probably, to be amended to ITEPI’ STYPAKA, i. e.
** about the haft.” ‘* No sooner did the executioner pierce the
body with his steel, than a stream of blood flowed upon the haft
of the weapon, so as to quench the fire.” The word oripag
signifies €vAov rod dxovriov (Ammon. Valckenaer, p. 133), and
the handle of a smaller weapon,—as here.

THE END.

Gitsert & Rivineron, Printers, St. John’s Square, London.

Works by the same Author. .

I.

LECTURES on the APOCALYPSE. Third Edition. 10s. 6d.

+
II.

TWO LECTURES on the DOCTRINE of a MILLENNIUM.
Third Edition. 3s. 6d.
III.
On ST. PAUL’S PROPHECY concerning the MAN of SIN. 1s.

IV.

HARMONY of the APOCALYPSE; a revised English Trans-
lation, in parallel columns, with Notes. Second Edition. 4s. 6d.

a Ns
GREEK TEXT of the APOCALYPSE, with MSS. Collations.
10s. 6d.

VI.
On the CANON of SCRIPTURE, and INSPIRATION,
and on the APOCRYPHA. Second Edition. 9s.

Vil.
OCCASIONAL SERMONS preached in Westminster Abbey :—
First Series: on BAPTISM, CALVINISM, and the LITURGY.
Fourth Edition. 7s.
Second Series: on the CHURCH of ROME. Fourth Edition. 7s.
Third Series: on EDUCATION. Fourth Edition. 7s.
Fourth Series: HISTORY of the IRISH CHURCH. 8s.

>
Vill.

LETTERS to M. GONDON on the ;CHURCH of ROME.
Third Edition. 7s. 6d.

SEQUEL to ditto. Second Edition. 6s. 6d.

Ix.
THEOPHILUS ANGLICANUS. Sixth Edition. 7s. 6d.

x.
DIARY in FRANCE. Second Edition. 5s. 6d.
XI.
THEOCRITUS. 12s.

XII.
ATHENS and ATTICA. Second Edition. 12s.

US ey

ae ua a ee Tee Te ec Te Tie Ti ieee Tes i AN a

TT
oh ;

i > an i \ AAA

‘| nye i wi cy i

} Mihi fous |||
at AT

;

¥ =< ieee tae
— eee preaeeanen-eee———aenneeromonn

ee
a
ves pe neccmmarerenent
Woven
— SPUN Noh ehe SAITO ine nerrrenmemcpes
settee ee nanecan-nnnameernenrncionaren Aoe\ | tae’ wapad rete pheaeng Sitar pean”
SKIS 5 | jase pen Bhvms trea epcpier} bf b4 bids bem Py tal am -

. ern A
: Nl Siple an
_
= OPO Reta trier > oo ree
<7 m r Saree Hi dite
round my tie

a

tgpabaiet |||! patente NN A:
T fine in i cana a cit

po rmeaeenee

emt neat seem nonnareopreme gi
PF RE Ce =
f De

_ oe
eS SS et Bs ES ile ‘S Bh etn — hem 2 sicgpmeeels
ere iene nS vs moe ep cnpapes! io ~ <a . ~ 4 “1 seit ufo Nm al le ore {aan
. pret inches < .
cae
= 3 a ~~ .

an eres
a

wialan 2,

t
i
me eae Hie .
at? hia )

aa ai H
fac: te
Pe Te

wil i

i a
Ml } Hes ay onda ‘HN ue

i An ji qe a ae Ea a a A a a Ge A ia ie

OE ih i i A ii Mh

i my "Ny ; i]